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).

He is a Hispanic American not Latino American because he comes from Cuba. Kaybe123 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba is considered part of Latin America. See Rangel, Carlos (1977). The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. pp. 3–5. ISBN 978-0-15-148795-0. See also Skidmore, Thomas E.; Peter H. Smith (2005). Modern Latin America (6 ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-0-19-517013-9.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections can and should be split to separate articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of these would definitely be moving his political positions into a separate article at Political positions of Marco Rubio which is a redirect at the moment. Idealist343 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The section here need to summarize his key political positions, per WP:SUMMARY. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's verbatim the same as the "Overall political stance" section in the main article. Feel free to revise both, but they're perfectly in sync.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. we need to summarize the article not just a section of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That section summarizes the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't find that this article is especially long, but it wouldn't hurt to trim some detail. I object to removing the 'Political positions' section without leaving a summary of all of his notable political positions. There's some legislative detail that can be trimmed from the 'U.S. Senate section' and some detail could easily be removed from the 'Adjunct professor at Florida International University' section. - MrX 12:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I agree with both the spin-out and the idea that it should not be spun out without leaving a proper summary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 117,541 bytes. The Hillary Clinton article is 227,618 bytes. Barack Obama is 274,355 bytes. John McCain is 189,812 bytes. Bernie Sanders is 121,421. I'm removing the tag until there's some evidence that it's warranted.CFredkin (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Political positions of Marco Rubio now has a proper lead based on material from the PBS NewsHour. That lead is also repeated in the pertinent section of this article. The only thing I did not mention is life/abortion since I'm not supposed to edit regarding that issue, per ArbCom edict of ages ago. I only mention this so that someone else can take care of that. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits referenced above by Anythingyouwant look fine to me. My objection is to a claim that the article is too long at this point.CFredkin (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillary Clinton article is not a good example, because it's badly bloated (like the others you mentioned). WP:TOOLONG says: "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy also says that the right thing to do is not to slap a tag on an article that is longer than the guideline, or to start chopping it up, but instead one should start a discussion about whether shortening is appropriate or if the additional length is justified because of the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I don't favor slapping tags on an article before talk page discussion has encountered difficulties. Anyway, the tag is off this section now, and the discussion has been going on productively in this talk page section for over 20 hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Process-wise, can we please follow WP:BRD? Give it a few days, see which way people are leaning. Personally, I haven't had any chance to look at this, but the 28k-byte changes back and forth in the history make it harder to do. CometEncke (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to leave it the way it is now, for a few days, because no one has explained why we need to repeat everything at Political positions of Marco Rubio, and no one has asserted that the current summary of his political positions (including recently-added material from the PBS NewsHour) is in any way inadequate or otherwise improper.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:BRD would suggest putting it back to where it was before. That said, the last thing this needs is another person warring it back and forth, and I'm not going to, at least not now. Looking at the material that is being warred over, I did have one question. It seemed like a lot of it was in alphabetical order, but a few things (drug policy) were way out of alpha order. Is there any kind of policy on that? CometEncke (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone reverts without giving any reason whatsoever, then I don't think that qualifies as the "R" in "BRD". Anyhow, you'll see that I put the "drug policy" section in alphabetical order at Political positions of Marco Rubio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please quit removing this section until there is some consensus on how it should be summarized. The PBS article is a poor prototype in my opinion. For example, the net neutrality description is lacking nuance. You also omitted his position on gun rights, and abortion. Euphemisms like "Rubio believes marriage is between a man and a woman." do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Let's try a straightforward "Rubio opposes same sex marriage (and apparently wants to roll back the Supreme Court decision making it legal[4])".- MrX 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could delete the whole article until we agree on every point. But I think the rational thing would be to stop repeating verbatim everything at Political positions of Marco Rubio, and simply improve the summary of it. I am fine elaborating a little bit on the same-sex marriage position, and the PBS article provides such elaboration, but I'm not for saying that PBS has a slant on this that is too conservative for Wikipedia. Regardng abortion, I already explained why someone else has to fill in that blank, not me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The separate article was a redirect until you turned it into an article. If you're not happy with duplication, make it back into a redirect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those who proposed above having a separate article on political positions, so I'm not deleting it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then you won't sway anyone with the "duplication" argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the new summary paragraph for the time being. Currently it's just adding needless redundancy to the article.CFredkin (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's redundant to summarize political positions before detailing them, any more than it's redundant to have a lead before having the rest of an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the warring has stopped (thanks), I took a look at the articles for the other four leading 2016 candidates (Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, and Trump). All four of them do have a summary of political positions with more detail in a sub-article. So for consistency, I think that would make sense here. CometEncke (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Clinton's summary of her Political Positions consists of a number of ratings of her position on the conservative vs. liberal spectrum, as Rubio's does currently.CFredkin (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That style would be best, and is what I started out replacing this section with. But others objected that they wanted a summary of particular issues, so I got a summary from PBS NewsHour. Then people objected that the PBS NewsHour summary is inadequate, so I combined it with a summary from the New York Times. And then that was removed. Any one of these iterations would be better than the detailed issue-by-issue approach that we have now. We are supposed to summarize what's at Political positions of Marco Rubio, but I cannot get a summary of that article into this one, even if it's merely in addition to what's already here. So I invite others to give it a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus above formed by Cwobeel, Idealist343, Rhododendrites, CometEncke, and myself, I expect to again remove the detailed issue positions soon, and install a hat note linking to Political positions of Marco Rubio. That article is identical to what's already in this one. I haven't inserted any new sources into either article regarding Rubio's political positions; both articles use sources that have been in this article for a long time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection as long as we don't lose any major points, and as long as we don't use euphemistic wording. I would help, but I'm going to be busy IRL for the next few days.- MrX 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way that the summary is set up, it relies on the PBS and NYT surveys to pick out the major issues, and both surveys have been in this BLP a long time (not inserted by me). P.S. If Rubio has a euphemistic belief or position, and these survey articles say so, then I wouldn't feel comfortable circumventing it in a summary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now I get to do some stuff IRL.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant: It seems like you took the opportunity to polish up some of the political positions so that bad things sound good. For example, "on climate change, he believes temperatures have increased, but denies — or is reluctant to acknowledge — the consensus of the scientific community that it is caused by humans, and he asserts that other nations like China are mainly responsible;" ← That is not even close to the consensus version of this material that was in the article, so I changed it to use the exact wording in the consensus version. - MrX 13:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If people are going to mess about like this (i.e., watering down a formulation previously arranged via consensus), we can go back to having "political positions" in this article (and restoring the sub into a redirect). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I correctly followed the two survey articles about his political positions, from PBS and NYT. I had hoped we could stick to those two sources which pick out the major issues of greatest relevance, and concisely summarize where he stands. Details and further sources are available at Political positions of Marco Rubio. Of course, if you think the NYT and PBS are euphemistic, unreliable, right-wing sources, then understandably you might disagree with the approach I took.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need help finding the RfC above? It hasn't been closed yet, but it's obvious how it will be closed (and the sentence in question was previously in the article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{od} It's an interesting question what happens with an RfC that is started at article A, but by the end, it's an arguable question whether it better applies to article A or article B. Is anyone aware of any precedent on that? CometEncke (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That section does not come close to being NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How specifically is the section NPOV?CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like, according to many press outlets, the repeated line of the debate flub has been called historic and a defining moment in Rubio's career and campaign. It should be included in some capacity. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this was Rubio's Howard Dean moment. It may be worth a brief mention here, and even more so at the campaign article.- MrX 01:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is the phrase 'The university and Rubio's office dispute the notion that the teaching position was based on a "sweetheart deal"'. That's insinuating guilt by the frankly underhanded means of putting in the denial. I will restrain myself for the moment, based solely on my dislike of revert wars, but frankly, that's way over the line. For example, I notice that the Hillary Clinton article does not deny that any "donations" the Clinton Foundation received might have had anything to do with any official decisions she made at State. CometEncke (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's directly supported by the source, but I think it can be taken out. It sounds a bit non-neutral and doesn't really add much to the bio.- MrX 01:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is directly supported by the source. Since there were accusations of a sweetheart deal, it seemed only fair to Rubio that we also include the denial. I'm open to modifying that section, and encourage you to give it a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sentence should go. I think it comes across as WP:WEASEL words.Eeyoresdream (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per the consensus above, I've taken it out. Thank you all for your inputs. CometEncke (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this edit by Cwobeel to be highly objectionable. The edit summary given was, "this is a bio". Yes, Cwobeel, I am aware that the article is a biography. I fail to see why that means that the name of a newspaper (The Washington Post) should not be linked, or why the section "Personal life" must repeat that Marco Rubio was briefly a Mormon as a child, something already explained clearly in the section "Early life, education, and entry into politics". Would you please have the courtesy to explain yourself properly, instead of with cryptic edit summaries? Is there some special reason why Rubio's being briefly a Mormon is so very important it must be repeated twice? Please do tell. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that religion during childhood doesn't need to be repeated in two different sections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thank you for saying so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, saying this once is enough.CometEncke (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anythingyouwant changed his official Senate portrait to one from 2015. While it may be more recent the 2015 portrait captures him at a bad angle, and he really hasn't changed much since the 2011 Senate portrait was taken. MB298 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the other portrait image is better. It's more recent, the resolution is better, and it's more flattering.Eeyoresdream (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change back, though I think the 2015 one is better (the German Wikipedia was using it at the top before the English Wikipedia[5]).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 (official) portrait is much better quality and higher resolution (2400x3040) than the 1215x1717 portrait from 2015, in which only the microphone is actually in focus. That said, I don't think there is much difference in how either image represents the subject at thumbnail size.- MrX 02:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the more recent image.CFredkin (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell from this discussion, the more recent image is preferred by myself, Eeyoresdream, and CFredkin; MB298 prefers the older image, and MrX thinks there's not much difference. So, I will put back the recent image, which as I said is already used at the German Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is inferior by every measure. Its composition, clarity, and resolution. The Senator is not looking at the camera, it is not head-on, it is shot from below. The portrait image is the precise thing we look for. Being recent serves no purpose in this case, as he has not visibly aged since the photograph being taken in 2011. I see no objective rationale for removing a high-quality, contemporary, and official U.S. Senate portrait.   Spartan7W §   20:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can't do math. Eeyoresdream's input doesn't make sense, Mr. X prefers official, MB298 prefers official. That is no consensus of any kind, especially adding my reasoning.   Spartan7W §   20:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he looks much younger in the old portrait. He's aged more than 10% (according to my inferior math skills). Any difference in quality between the images is not obvious in a thumbnail. Eeyoresdream said that he prefers the image that is "more recent, the resolution is better, and it's more flattering." And Mr. X said, "I don't think there is much difference in how either image represents the subject at thumbnail size". So you misinterpret their opinions, not to mention excluding CFredkin, SirLagsalott, and myself from your tally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a very compelling image and rationale to make this change. He is a sitting United States Senator and with all sitting U.S. Senators, his official portrait should be used. Why? Its official. Its free-use. It is of exceptional quality, clarity, composition. In short, the U.S. Senate provides us an image which includes every feature which we would ever hope to have in an infobox portrait image. He has not aged so considerably that his image demands changing. Hillary Clinton's image was much older, and she has changed her appearance much more over that period than Rubio. In addition, she is not in office. The proposed image is inferior in every respect, aside from its 'being more recent'. Its angle, color, composition, clarity, are all worse. It is looking upward at him, he isn't looking at the camera. This is in no way an equal substitute, especially when the only complaint is minor aging.   Spartan7W §   20:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any policy or guideline that favors an old official portrait to a new picture. There is, however, an essay at WP:Portrait that says, "Avoid using images just because other sites use them."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that says we have to update regardless of quality. You seem to have completely ignored the point I made about the QUALITY of the image. This new image is of inferior quality, and the official portrait is of excellent encylopedoc quality.   Spartan7W §   22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make my revert because I agree or disagree, only because edit warring is not acceptable. I was here for another question, which I posted on the talk page, I got a great answer from a thoughtful editor and stated that my request should be considered closed and best of all, no edits to the actual article were made.... That is how it is supposed to work. The people in the thread seem to be reasonable, work it out and not via "who can mash the revert button the most". Lipsquid (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any image will look crummy if we enlarge it enough. At thumbnail size, these two images both have good resolution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, User:Lipsquid, you reverted to show others that reverting is not a good thing? That doesn't seem too clever to me. Remember what happened the last time you went down this road? Don't say you weren't warned! --John (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John I really don't care about the picture. I didn't vote and I agree they should be consistent. Don't be sad because your change was reverted on the Metrojet article. Lipsquid (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unorthodox request. I thought "DKY the Little Flower is the only church in the United States to have two Presidential candidates in it's congregation?" would look great at AFD, so I expanded the article. It's solid. I usually edit on content, and although I did so once or twice, I don't usually put articles I create up for AFD. However, if someone here wants to review this and nominate it at AFD, click Talk:Church of the Little Flower (Coral Gables, Florida).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Drmies (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this content from the article. That detail is not appropriate for Rubio's bio. It is already included in the article on his presidential campaign, where it's probably more appropriate. Time will tell whether the incident has a long-term impact. If we're going to include this incident here, we should consider including the incident regarding Clinton's response to a question regarding her $675K speaking fee in her bio, which received a similar level of media attention.CFredkin (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we say that he's got great oratory abilities, I don't see a problem with briefly mentioning that his oratorical goof cost him New Hampshire.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than mess it up ...

Reference 131 points to the magazine and not the article written. How is this fixed properly?

The article reference would be: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/30/marco-rubio-is-right-that-others-have-missed-more-votes-but-theyve-also-come-under-fire/

Thank you!

All done, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't doubt his conservative credentials, nor do I dispute the veracity or neutrality of the sources, I do think these quotes are inappropriate for the "Political Positions" section:

"As of early 2015, Rubio had a rating of 98.67 by the American Conservative Union, based on his lifetime voting record in the Senate. According to the National Journal, in 2013 Rubio had been the 17th most conservative senator. The Club for Growth gave Rubio ratings of 93 percent and 91 percent based on his voting record in 2014 and 2013 respectively, and he has a lifetime rating from the organization above 90 percent."

These are not political positions, I have no problem at all with the inclusion of the statements in other areas of the article, but I don't believe they belong here which should be a listing of current political topics and his position on those topics. These do not fit the generally used Political Position criteria. Lipsquid (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ratings are based upon political positions, and they characterize political positions. It's therefore fairly standard at Wikipedia to include such ratings in a "political positions" section. I am not aware of any criteria that say otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings on political positions are not political positions. The most noteworthy comparisons for this election would be Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, both of whom's political positions sections are laid out as issue - then position. This article is the outlier. Also, where these comments are located could be a sign of undue weight and original research. What sources do we have to say that these groups are important enough, or unbiased for that matter, to judge a candidates political positions? If you have to start expanding on sources to back up sources within the political positions header, you can see this is probably in the wrong section. Why not just move it to a part of the article that is a better fit? I have no issue with the content, I just believe it is in the wrong section. Lipsquid (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings are typically calculated using legislative votes, and Trump was not a legislator. In contrast, see John_McCain#Political_positions and Hillary_Clinton#Political_positions. Both include ratings, and they are both featured articles, which is the gold standard at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant Thank you for the courteous feedback, maybe the Cruz article needs to be changed. This section can be closed as far as i am concerned. Thank you again! Lipsquid (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A

B

Should the official portrait of Senator Rubio (A) be replaced with (B)? - 15:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Of the 100 sitting U.S. Senators, 99 use their official portraits, with the exception of Cory Booker, for whom none is available. When choosing an infobox portrait we must consider what is the best image, and of most encyclopedic value. Image A, as with U.S. Congressional portrait in general, provide us with image of excellent quality, which are free-use, and which provide great encyclopedic value. The proposed image, as well as almost all more 'recent' images currently available to us, are of inferior quality. Image B has a very poor angle, it is looking from below, upward. It is not head-on, the Senator is not looking at the camera, nor in the general direction thereof, nor is his head centered. There is a microphone clearly in frame. It is of far lower resolution, clarity, and composition. Image A is a professionally executed image, it is his official U.S. Senate portrait, it has excellent lighting, color, composition, resolution, and framing of the subject. It is a superior image. Furthermore, Senator Rubio has not visibly aged or changed his appearance to such a degree as to appear different in this official portrait than he does on the campaign trail. Secretary Clinton's article has used a more recent candid, which is of high quality, to substitute for her official State Department portrait due to the aforementioned qualities which affect her appearance. These do not apply here. Therefore, all things considered, Image A is by far the best.   Spartan7W §   15:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I find both images acceptable, but I think that the rule for sitting senators to systematically use the official senate portraits (unless there are strong reasons for an exception) saves us a lot of discussion. The image is unquestionably good enough, free, and not misleading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (favor A) per Spartan7W and Stephan Schulz. Both images are acceptable and represent the subject well, but the the official portrait has better technical and aesthetic quality. Senator Rubio is still a senator, so using his official government portrait seems most appropriate at this point.- MrX 15:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (favor A). I agree with Spartan7W's argument, though I don't agree with the tone of the comments made in the section above, the comments directed at Anythingyouwant. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The official, formal image is more appropriate to appear in an article concerning a sitting U.S. Senator, and accurately reflects the current appearance of the subject. Though color balance is more pleasant, picture B is just a little more informal (viz collar and tie) and given that the official photo is available to us, we should use it. General Ization ^Talk 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Favor. The other image is clearer and more relevant. Resolution does not matter because of the size of it on the page (no one would notice) and it's a picture of him campaigning for the office he is currently seeking instead of the generic six-years-old portrait. Both images are fine but Spartan7W continues edit warring and insulting the intelligence of myself and Anythingyouwant. Not a good way to get his message across. SirLagsalott (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't think it's clearer, and its relevance (his seeking office? but we're not the news) is only clear from a caption. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can certainly include a caption. Perhaps we can use this more recent image in the infobox and his official Senate portrait in the relevant biographical section of his article? SirLagsalott (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you miss Drmies's point, which I understand to be that image B in itself does not transport significant context - certainly not more than image A. The special context only becomes relevant with a caption - and it's of short-term interest at best. In a year, we will either have an official White House portrait, or "Senator" will be much more relevant than "candidate". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stephan, thank you. Yes, the image by itself carries none of the meanings that ostensibly argue for its inclusion. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Just use the official portrait. It's what we do with most politicians. – Illegitimate Barrister, 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went through about a dozen very famous, current Senators and 7 of their Wikipedia photo URLs, including Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, went to dead link 404s because they are no longer the official photo. Lipsquid (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? --John (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Very insightful John. I thought someone may have an interest in looking into other photos for inconsistencies. Different people find different topics important. That is what makes Wikipedia great. Lipsquid (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: Is there any reason why you think the 404s come "because they are no longer the official photo[s]" rather than because the Senate website has been majorly overhauled while ignoring best practices? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, but I did go to the McConnell site and searched for "official photo" and a different photo came up than the one Wikipedia uses. ^[1] Lipsquid (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the official portrait is the most appropriate for a biography of a sitting U.S. Senator.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]