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.

Regarding this edit, and my partial revert and attempt to improve it... first off, CFredkin, I'm not meaning to wikistalk you; I just noticed this in the same paragraph as the one we were just discussing above re Roe. Your edit removed the term "roving wiretaps" despite the fact that this was the provision of the Patriot Act that that the sentence and source were talking about. (Once again, the source is the OnTheIssues page for Rubio; it simply says "Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)".) Anyway, I assume the omission was an error and restored.

Re your added explanation about what the Patriot Act is for: we need to be careful with this kind of thing; too much can sound like apologetics. Wiretaps sound bad, but catching terrorists sounds good. This can introduce a subtle spin, contrary to NPOV. If we must have it, it needs to be brief and accurate. We can't say that the roving wiretaps provision applies only to suspects outside the US or that a warrant isn't needed; it's not at all clear to me that either is true. Better to leave it vague and general. In the spirit of compromise I kept some explanation but simplified the wording and put in a pipelink that should help readers.

P.S. If you put in a colon right before your reply, it will indent, which helps make the thread more readable. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I missed this. Thanks for the tip. I also appreciate the calm feedback.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short note about Rubio's biggest policy speech in at least the last year and it got reverted.

So what if anything can be said about his new policy? Hcobb (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just the source, how about this one?

In 2014, Rubio called for replacing the minimum wage mandate on private employers with taxpayer funded wage subsidies for the working poor.^[1]

Hcobb (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio is considered a potential nominee, so we ought to add a section for this aspect. Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/04/14/marco-rubio-shakes-up-staff-and-stirs-2016-presidential-rumors/
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375161/marco-rubios-jeb-problem-eliana-johnson
• http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/marco-rubio-jeb-bush-2016-105490.html

Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the Awards section which was just added should have secondary sources to indicate significance.CFredkin (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. In these cases, it is best to add the template {{citation needed}} instead of deleting. Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm referring to secondary sources which provide some indication that the award is significant.CFredkin (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant enough if the sources include Marco Rubio's own senate.gov page and other sources. I don't get your edits, you seem to put the bar at whatever height you feel like. I can start again a new thread at BLP/N if that is what you want to do, but after a while it will become tedious and WP:TEND Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both politicians at the federal level and organizations generate high volumes of press releases. Not all of them are notable for mention in BLP's. Providing secondary sources to indicate their significance is a reasonable expectation. Please let me know if you can find any instances of me citing content only based on primary sources in the recent past.CFredkin (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong again, Primary sources are not shunned in Wikipedia, see WP:PRIMARY, in particular the sentence that starts with: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CFredkin: Why this deletion? [1]. First you removed it because you argued that the sources were not valid. I then added sources as requested. Then you delete it again because you think it does not belong to a section. Are you doing this in purpose to disrupt? Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, providing a reliable secondary source to indicate the significance of a press release is a reasonable expectation. I don't believe blogs are typically considered reliable sources. Additionally you added the statement to the section on his tenure in the House. The press release was generated during his tenure in the Senate.CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CFredkin: First you delete this content [2] requesting additional sources, which I added. After I add sources, you remove it again [3] with an edit summary of "Not relevant to tenure in House". I then move it to a more appropriate section, and you follow with a 3rd revert [4] with this edit summary: "Rm content per article Talk", when there is nos such discussion.

Are you trying to be disruptive just for the fun of it? What is your rationale for your reverts? Cwobeel (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section immediately before this one, which I believe you started.CFredkin (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is for a different edit, related to the "Awards" section. Here I am asking you to provide a rationale for the deletion of the content about Rubio's chief of staff. Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a template for legislators that includes slots for CoS, so this can be applied uniformly? Hcobb (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I added two additional secondary sources to replace the press release. BTW, press releases from Senate offices are also reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article belongs to no single editor, and, once surpassing the hurdle of content coming from a reliable, verifiable source, no single editor's view of what is or is not sufficiently significant to remain should prevail. Moreover, it is not the offering but the reverting editor's responsibility to exercise respect and caution in rejecting a good faith edit from another editor. In this vein, the recent reversions by CFredkin of the edits from Cwobeel are, in my view, inappropriate. Rather than use the authoritative approach of reverting the content, which appears to have been sourced and verifiable, it should have been tagged, requesting better sourcing, or brought to Talk, to have its significance discussed. Bottom line, reversions are to be exercised very cautiously, and not against reasonable quality good faith edits. Put the material back, and raise your objections here. This is no more one editor's article than another. Le Prof 12.49.20.42 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we have one tiny mention of how Rubio's own experiences have shaped his views on drug policy? Hcobb (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Rubio has a history of drug abuse, without reliable sourcing, (as you did here) is defamatory.CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If ABC is too lamestream a source, then how about Reason?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/marco-rubio-stonewalls-on-his-pot-smokin "Marco Rubio Stonewalls on His Pot Smoking—for the Children"

Hcobb (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just about exactly the same text:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/marco-rubio-marijuana-pot-no-answer-florida-2016-106829.html Rubio claims that his decision to stay silent on his own marijuana use spurred from the publishing of his recent memoir “American Son,” where he admitted that he “wasn’t a very good high school student” and received only at 2.1 GPA.

So it looks like my text passes every sniff test. Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now [5][6] the statement "The National Climate Assessment released by the White House in 2014 found that Florida, Rubio's home state, is one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change." has been removed alleging WP:OR and/or WP:SYN The sentence is backed up entirely by the source in place, so I'm not sure what Collect and Cwobeel are referring to. Please explain. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right. I should have consulted the source before deleting. I will undo my edit. Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to think Wikipedia is the place for political campaign rhetoric.

It isn't.

BTW, when misquoting a person, one ought to be more careful: I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it is not the same in any respect as he did not believe that climate change was caused by human activity, and catenating a "slight misstatement of fact" in order to make a political point does not help readers here. Collect (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First: Cwobeel thanks for restoring the sourced content.

Second: Collect I do not care for this unfounded attack: "You appear to think Wikipedia is the place for political campaign rhetoric" and I certainly do not appreciate this one "BTW, when misquoting a person, one ought to be more careful". The sentence you are referring to was not added by me, it was there before I had made any edits to the article.

Third: Collect not sure what you mean by catenating a "slight misstatement of fact".

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect you have again removed the sourced content that was added by me and re-added by another editor. There's no "political purposes" in stating what a WP:RS says in an article about Rubio in a section about his position on climate change, in relation to his home state and the effects climate change will have over it. Please re-add the content. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all -- the claim as to what Rubio actually said is not the claim which was made. Second is the use of "although" making a connection between an agency report and Rubio's comments, when it is clear that his comments were not in any way related to the report juxtaposed with the incorrect claims as to what he said. The combination is deadly on Wikipedia where we much maintain absolute NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: the claim is now almost entirely verbatim so that's not an issue anymore.

Second: at no point was the word "although" used to connect Rubio's denial of climate change to the statement put forward by the National Climate Assessment. Not in the original version I added and not in the version crafted by Cwobeel. You removed twice that piece of reliably sourced content, first claiming "OR, SYNTH", then claiming "political purposes" and now you re-affirm your removal claiming an incorrect use of the word "although". I am going to politely ask you once again to please restore the content removed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, this is a pretty poor showing on your part. The L.A. Times piece is entitled "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change". It is therefore appropriate to summarize this source by saying that Rubio "did not believe that climate change was caused by human activity". I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. The person misusing the source in this instance is you; the source could not be clearer, but you seem determined, for reasons about which I can only speculate, to muddy it.

Separately, other sources clarify that Rubio consistently questions or "denies" (their word) the scientific understanding of climate change. See, for example, PolitiFact: "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." I have added back the accurate summary of the L.A. Times source, along with the new PolitiFact source, and removed the MSNBC opinion piece (since we should limit the use of partisan opinion pieces as much as possible, instead preferring reliable news/factual pieces). MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, this is very poor reasoning on your part. In case you did not know this headlines are not part of the newspaper article. They are written by folks who do not write the articles. They are not "fact checked" and they frequently are written to get folks interested in a topic, and are not intended to be the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy. Headlines are subject to the newspaper's editorial control, just like the rest of the article, and are thus equally reliable. In any case, the L.A. Times article is hardly the only source pointing up Rubio's stance on climate change; as I noted above, PolitiFact summarizes numerous instances where he "denies" (in their words) the human role in climate change. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell thanks for your edit and cmmt. What do you think of the original sentence that prompted me to open this section (see first comment)? Do you think it should be re-added? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it out. While I understand that it appears in the cited source (L.A. Times), it doesn't quite fit with how our paragraph is written. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin removed[7] the limh ''{{main|Climate change}}'' claiming it to be a "superfluous link". I disagree that this is superfluous given that the sub-section is precisely about climate change. Is there policy-based rationale for this? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The climate change article is linked in the text, and that is sufficient. Cwobeel (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is about Rubio. If the article as about climate change, or aspect of climate change, then it would appropriate to include a link in the sub-header.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't believe MSNBC pundit Hayes's opinion of Rubio's statements on climate change is relevant. Hayes isn't exactly noted as an expert on climate change or scientific topics.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. You guys are really into serious whitewashing. Off my watch list. Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) on Rubio's position on climate change has been removed. The comment is this one:

• His position regarding climate change has been characterized by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) as a "train wreck of incoherence."^[2]

The source is a reliable one (MSNBC) and the author is a well-known journalist. I believe it should be restored. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News pieces from MSNBC are arguably reliable sources, but the quote in question is taken from a partisan opinion piece. This distinction is an important one—news pieces from reputable media outlets are good sources, but partisan opinion pieces or editorials are much less so. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - partisan opinion piece - attacking in nature - no include Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]