Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 287: Line 287:
:::With any politician, aspects of his or her biography blend into and inform his or her political positions. All the more so with someone like Rubio, whose political campaigns have focused so heavily on his personal biography and family history. I think you are trying to create an artificial separation that doesn't exist in actual reliable sources or biographies of Rubio, and that doesn't compute on a common-sense level either. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 01:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:::With any politician, aspects of his or her biography blend into and inform his or her political positions. All the more so with someone like Rubio, whose political campaigns have focused so heavily on his personal biography and family history. I think you are trying to create an artificial separation that doesn't exist in actual reliable sources or biographies of Rubio, and that doesn't compute on a common-sense level either. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 01:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Are you saying that the section of this article titled "Early life, education, and entry into politics" should also discuss Rubio's immigration policies and how those policies might or might not affect someone like his grandfather? The New York Times doesn't separate Rubio's policies from the story of his grandfather's immigration (quite the opposite), and so I don't think we should separate them either. It should all be discussed together at [[Political positions of Marco Rubio]]. That would be all the more appropriate because Rubio was not born for many years after his grandfather's immigration, because he had no idea until long after he entered politics that his grandfather had a problematic immigration, and because the section about "Early life, education, and entry into politics" already appropriately mentions "Rubio's maternal grandfather who fled communist Cuba in 1962" which is more than enough for that section.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Are you saying that the section of this article titled "Early life, education, and entry into politics" should also discuss Rubio's immigration policies and how those policies might or might not affect someone like his grandfather? The New York Times doesn't separate Rubio's policies from the story of his grandfather's immigration (quite the opposite), and so I don't think we should separate them either. It should all be discussed together at [[Political positions of Marco Rubio]]. That would be all the more appropriate because Rubio was not born for many years after his grandfather's immigration, because he had no idea until long after he entered politics that his grandfather had a problematic immigration, and because the section about "Early life, education, and entry into politics" already appropriately mentions "Rubio's maternal grandfather who fled communist Cuba in 1962" which is more than enough for that section.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Events that occur before one's birth can have an effect on one's life, and may even be relevant to an "Early life" section of a biography. Again, I don't think this is a foreign concept to you, so I'm not sure why we're stuck on it. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 01:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:16, 19 March 2016


RFC: Does the sourcing given support the statement "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change"?

NAC:There is rough consensus that the sourcing does support the inclusion of the statement with respect to Rubio. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article contains the following passage: Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming . . . The article points two two sources [1][2]. A third source, not currently linked in the article, also discusses Rubio's remarks: [3]. Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article? CometEncke (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, Rubio agrees with portions of the scientific consensus (the earth is warming), has taken no position that I can find on other portions (sea level is rising), and, as the sources show, says be believes another portion (humans are the primary cause) is either unproven or false (not entirely clear which he believes). That's a far cry from disputing the entire scientific understanding, as the article states. EDIT: I find it rather disheartening that none of the "yes" voters has even addressed my actual concern. LATER EDIT (2/12): In light of the recent spin-out of the political positions, it is now arguable whether this RfC better applies here or at Political positions of Marco Rubio. Despite my obvious interest in the RfC per se, I'm actually not taking any position on that until I see some precedent, other than a suggestion that the closer should consider the issue.[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scientific understanding of climate change is that it is occurring primarily as a result of human activity. Rubio disputes this. There are innumerable independent, reliable sources attesting to Rubio's position (a subset of which I've provided here). It is sort of incomprehensible that we need an RfC to authorize us to state an obvious, well-sourced fact, although I guess it is election season... MastCell Talk 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seek consensus and ye shall find it. I won't wade into this, except to say that there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not subscribe to every facet of the scientific consensus about climate change, even though they do not dispute that overall consensus. If you stick closely to what the sources say, I think the editors in dispute can reach agreement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course. The two sources cited are more than sufficient, and corroborated by numerous other sources as pointed out by MastCell. Even the ABC News article linked by the OP supports the content in question when Rubio says: "The fundamental question is whether man-made activity is what's contributing to it. I understand that people say there's a significant scientific consensus on that issue, but I've actually seen reasonable debate on that principle." Rubio considers the debate about anthropogenic climate change to be ongoing and reasonable, while the overwhelming majority of scientists consider it settled. That's the dispute. - MrX 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in particular with the LA Times source. Also see the Scientific American. Personally, I have the impression that he panders to the Republican base and donors, possibly against his better judgment, but there is no doubt that he does. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CometEncke, maybe you have not made your concern clear enough? Yes, I think that the sources are sufficient to support the bolded statement, and I offered an additional source supporting the claim. What, if not that, is your concern? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first two sentences after the bolded word "no" in my vote. Are they unclear? CometEncke (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CometEncke, would you approve of "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of human contributions to climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at what he actually says, it seems like sometimes he says just what you said, and other times he says something more along the lines of "arguing that it is not proven that human activity plays a major role in global warming." How to handle that discrepancy I don't know. CometEncke (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you ought to figure out how you want to handle it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I support MOND, I dispute general relativity, even if I don't disagree with all of it. Likewise, many climate science deniers agree with, say, the existence of temperature, some even that global temperature changes. But they disagree with core parts of the scientific consensus and hence the consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the criterion you are suggesting, it would be quite easy to argue that the IPCC itself does not agree with the scientific consensus of plant biology, given their chronic lack of clarity about the blindingly obvious impact of CO2 rise on plant growth in general and agriculture in particular.CometEncke (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Blindingly obvious" to whom? From a quick look at the literature you seem to argue akin to "iron is necessary to prevent anemia, so a sword in the stomach cannot be bad for you". In other words, while CO2 in isolation has a positive effect on some plants in some situations, things become a lot more complicated if you take other factors into account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, obviously. --JBL (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The statement is unambiguously supported by now three (numbered 144, 145, 146) references. CometEncke: the statement does not say that he disputes every aspect of the scientific understand, indeed it makes it clear which aspect he has doubts about. Maproom (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the sources provided clearly support that statement. The LA Times piece is especially clear about it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the header question "Does the sourcing given support the statement?" and the question in the last sentence of the abstract "Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article?" are not precisely the same thing, but answering to the section header question - yes, the sources support that statement.--Mondiad (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, From my understanding, Rubio (from this article) believes in non-anthropogenic climate change, but not anthropogenic climate change. So he believes in natural occurring changes in climate. Personally I do not like the term "Climate Change" as it is extremely vague because it could also refer to the natural change in climate e.g. The Earth plunging into an ice age due to natural changes in its orbit can also be "Climate change". If termed properly Rubio should've said that he rejects anthropogenic climate change, (to be even clearer "anthropogenic global warming") and believes in non-anthropogenic climate change. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does the text say scientific understanding as opposed to the article who says scientific opinion? I'm not saying it's particularly different but there's probably a reason one word has been picked over another since that was a conscious choice to pipe it that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - on the contrary, the cites show him in loose acceptance of the existence of climate change and that human factors play in. They seem mosly a couple liberal-lean papers poking at him (no surprise) for opposing the White House proposals (since he's Republican, also no surprise). It did not cover each of the bullets at Scientific opinion on climate change, but I think what's there accepts major items. I also think the wording 'dispute' and 'arguing' are factually incorrect as he is not literally arguing or disputing with a scientific group. I wouldn't say 'oppose' or 'support' either without an act to do so -- funding, voting, proposing a bill, even just marching or signing a petition but some definite action. Just answering questions from journalist with no action to them ... not so much. Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're capable of dismissing the wealth of reliable sources (including the Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, the Christian Science Monitor, PolitiFact, etc) as "a couple liberal-lean papers" [sic], then I think our understandings of site policy are extremely divergent. You also contend that Rubio exhibits a "loose acceptance" of the role that human activity plays in climate change. Please elaborate on the sources underlying your belief; as I've documented above, reliable sources seem essentially unanimous in noting that Rubio either ignores or denies a human role in climate change. One of us is clearly misinterpreting available sources; if it's me, I'd be happy to be enlightened. MastCell Talk 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • MastCell - Yes, I and also you must dismiss other sources, since that is what the RfC asks about. The question is if just the Miami Herald and the LATimes articles are sufficient for the wording of the wiki line. Instead I see (a) Miami factually shows the contrary and (b) These particular papers open it to seeming a 'just a couple liberal-lean papers poke at him' versus a neutral presentation. The Miami article to the contrary includes Rubio quoted as actually conveying the scientific consensus and loosely agreeing with it. “I’ve never denied that there is a climate change,” and “Scientists have concluded, in their opinion, that because we have produced more carbon into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, that’s the reason why, in their opinion, the earth’s trendlines are warming,”. The article wording which is not supported has "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change", and that wording being unlimited and active is obviously wrong. There would need to be demonstration of him actively putting forward contrary proposals to be 'Rubio disputes' and it would have to be on all or at least the fundamental points. Otherwise it exaggerates what should say 'some of the scientific understanding'. Bottom line -- the two cites would be more appropriately characterized as weak or partial acceptance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument is much like saying that someone who has invented a perpetual motion machine, turned his refrigerator into a time-travel spaceship, and is convinced he can levitate the Empire State Building through sheer force of will disputes only "some" of our understanding of physics because, hey, he accepts that heliocentrism may not be completely wrong. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, quite obviously. Anyone who claims otherwise either hasn't read those sources or has no clue what the "scientific understanding of climate change" is. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, quite obviously.
  • "“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.”" - Rubio on ABC's This Week in 2014 (via New Republic
  • "Humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason: I believe the climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing." - Rubio on Face the Nation (via Washington Post)
  • "Marco Rubio (junior U.S. senator from Florida) believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man" - Scientific American
  • "[the climate] has always been changing ... and what percentage of that is due to man's activity is not something there is a consensus on." - Rubio on Fox News (via NPR) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites - ??? This acts like 'No those two are not enough' on the Miami and LA articles, but it started Yes ... again the RFC is not Rubios position, it is whether the two cites stated do the job for the wording as shown -- or not. Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the sources were included in the RfC question or not. This thread is about whether sources support the inclusion of a statement. We're not going to start a new RfC for each specific set of sources, asking over and over "what about these specific sources?" to which people are only allowed to say yes or no without presenting any others. Wikipedia requires that potentially contentious statements are supported by reliable sources. All that matters if whether available sourcing supports inclusion of the statement. Even if no sources were cited at all at the outset of the RfC it would still make sense to consider the question in the context of sources people bring up over the course of the RfC. Finding additional sources only renders moot any assumptions built into the premise that there are only 2 or 3 sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodo -- just follow the cites -- the broad and absolute language did not give sufficient cite, which IS what was the topic, and just following cites and conveying due weight still adds up to partial support, or 'grudging' or ' doubtful on parts'. The language in article is just too broad to fit the facts. Markbassett (talk)
The language is "too broad" only if we are willing to disregard what the "scientific understanding of climate change" actually is. Human causation is fundamental to the scientific understanding of present-day climate change, just as evolution is fundamental to biology. The real problem with the sentence is that "disputes" is too weak; "rejects" is more accurate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it looks like my response would be to say more or less the same thing I did above. If you're simply disagreeing that the sources I pointed to do not support the proposed text, then my only response would be something along the lines of what Boris started with just above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodo YOUR cites say Rubio accepts climate change, and in 3 of 4 that humans are a factor. Not accurate to say this as "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding". One could say "disputes Obamas plans" or "Rubio is often criticized", or "weak, grudging, partial" even. But the proposed wording is too broad to match the cites. And again has appearance of couple more democrat-leaning papers sniping at Repubs - seems partisan - mostly on they criticized Obama -- also no surprise. Markbassett (talk)
The question is not "does Marco Rubio 'accept climate change'". The question is whether "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change". And those sources clearly support that statement. Most of the quotes above are his own words, so "the liberal media" tack doesn't seem relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The LA Times article quite clearly supports the statement, as does the ABC source, for that matter. One could quibble about the exact meaning of "dispute" if one only had the Miami Herald article, although that would be a real stretch, but it's irrelevant anyway, since the LA Times piece is unequivocal. Anaxial (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the scientifically relevant part of understanding climate change is understanding that there is overwhelming evidence that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuel. The sources clearly show that he does not accept this evidence or argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - A denier is a denier is a denier. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The language of this particular vote is inappropriate. CometEncke (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the three sources clearly support the statement. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but check sources. Here by Legobot. In the initial RfC, these three sources are provided:1,2, 3. 1 isn't really useful as there isn't anything specific enough. Tossing aside rhetoric trying to claim denialism is smear tactic, etc., while a common argument of deniers, isn't good enough for the claim. Simply being opposed to some unspecificed fixes doesn't quite work either. Source 2 and 3 however are appropriate for saying he doesn't believe human activity is causing climate change, and that supports the content in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grossly out of step with NPOV

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]

Repetition

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]

Image

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[4]).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]

Church of the Little Flower (Coral Gables, Florida)

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]

NH Debate

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]

Proper reference for an article

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]

Political Positions

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]

RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced?

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]
            • Comment I am not edit warring or insulting anybody's intelligence. Some were trying to make a major change, breaking with massive precedent, on the basis of nonexistent consensus.   Spartan7W §   22:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section has a gap from February 23 to February 28. As of February 23 there was a consensus, and that's when I summarized the opinions and restored the more recently-created image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? You maybe had 1 more pro over the cons, but thats no consensus, especially considering the kind of precedent we're looking at with U.S. politicians.   Spartan7W §   14:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on February 23: "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." That seemed like three to one among those expressing an opinion. Now that the RFC has sampled a broader response, that February 23 consensus is overturned. I really don't know what you expect from me; I'm not going to pretend the opinions were opposed to the newly-created image on February 23, just because the opinions are opposed to the newly-created image on March 1. I did not have a crystal ball on February 23.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 1 March 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]
  1. ^ http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Biography
  • 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]
  • Support. The new picture shows the subject after aging more than 10%, so it's more accurate in that regard. I'm not aware of a pertinent rule or guideline that requires the older image. It's true that 99 other Senator BLPs use the official image, but...only two of them are primarily known now for something else: being a presidential candidate in 2016, so that's a significant difference to consider (and both Sanders and Cruz have had a smaller change in age percentage-wise since the official image was taken). As to image quality, no significant difference is apparent at thumbnail size. I also find the title of this RFC confusing, because the recent image has been in place for a while (six days); a "replacement" would result in the older image. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk)
    • I looked back at Feb. 1 and Jan 2, and the RfC text seems correct to me; image A is the status quo ante, before edit-warring to put in image B began around February, am I correct? Therefore the RfC is to try (obviously unsuccessfully) to get a consensus to change it to B. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Official portraits are usually most desired, and Rubio hasn't aged much since 2011. MB298 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with the many comments above made in favor of official portraits as a standard for bio pages of sitting office holders.--JayJasper (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone wants a more recent image, but doesn't like image B, look at commons:Category:Portrait photographs of Marco Rubio. MB298 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to it next January, when he'll no longer be a U.S. Senator. Until then, it looks like people want to stick with the official image from 2011.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is still going on, and should be left open for a few more days. MB298 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.  I don't care which one is the official portrait and which is not. I just think that photo A is the better of the two and should not be replaced. To me A just looks more professional and more flattering.
    Richard27182 (talk)
  • Oppose. The first one looks more professional.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think photo A looks more professional, regardless of it being the "professional portrait." Photo B should not replace it in my opinion. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per those above. The official one is better and they are generally favored over others.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Regardless of subjective criteria (which, I agree, favor A), it's helpful in avoiding this kind of politicized content dispute to default to the official portrait. Rubio's rivals' articles Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton all use official portraits, leading to encyclopedic uniformity; this standard practice provides a defense against accusations of unfairly picking excessively- or insufficiently-flattering photos. FourViolas (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for a multitude of obvious reasons. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but we should have a clear and consistent policy; I've raised the issue here. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I request closure of this discussion from an uninvolved editor, opinion is strongly to oppose. MB298 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Rubio's cousin Moises Denis is a state legislator in Nevada

This info fits into the BLP of Mo Denis, but I don't think it fits well here. If cousin X committed murder, or cousin Y played a part in a movie, that's swell but it's kind of trivial. If two cousins both have BLPs at Wikipedia, then the relationship is more appropriate in the BLP of the less notable cousin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is relevant, especially as his cousin is also a politician. It shows that the family is also politically active in Nevada. Besides, it is just one short sentence.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this edit should be reverted. The redacted sentence says, "One of his cousins, Mo Denis, is a Democratic member of the Nevada Senate.", using this reference from the BBC, with a direct quote ("Michelle's older brother, Moises Denis, didn't attend the Sunday night rally and, as a Democratic politician representing Las Vegas in the Nevada Senate, is on the opposite side of the political divide from his relative.").Zigzig20s (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even describe Marco Rubio's sibling's occupations, much less his cousins'. But maybe we would have to discuss the siblings' occupations if we describe those of his cousins. And how many cousins does he have? I don't see why we should go into this depth about only one of them. Do you think we should clutter up the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump articles with the fact that they are distant cousins?[5]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rubio's cousin is a politician. It's completely relevant and should not be redacted. Even Steve Wynn mentioned Rubio's Nevada family in a recent interview. And they are not distant cousins--they "lived right by each other" (see the BBC article) and grew up together.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a coincidence. If he has a cousin who is a notable neurosurgeon, or a notable murderer, I don't see how that would be less relevant or more relevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's running for POTUS and the cousin he grew up next door to is also a politician. The family is politically active not only in Florida, but also in Nevada. Perfectly due to add a short sentence about it!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if anyone else has an opinion about it. I don't think a BLP like this needs to get into the occupations and activities of cousins.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually prune as much of this kind of family stuff as I can, but given that they're both in politics, I see the relevance. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the relationship is probably more notable in Mo's bio than in Marco's, given their relative prominence.CFredkin (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that they grew up together (they were neighbours when he was living in Las Vegas). I don't think it's trivial. I would understand if there was a long paragraph about it, but I think there should be a short sentence.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies: I agree with you that a short sentence should be added. Can we please move forward with this?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio's grandfather

  • When it comes to family history, I see that we've already "pruned" the relevant, well-documented fact that Rubio's grandfather immigrated to the US illegally and evaded a judge's deportation order to remain in the country. So hey, we might as well "prune" this as well. MastCell Talk 16:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a diff? I don't recall that prune.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ MastCell The fact that Rubio's maternal grandfather's SECOND migration to the US (after, at about 60, he had returned to Castro's Cuba for a couple years) was once judged to be illegal, would be more relevant had it ever effected Rubio's mother's legal status in any way. Since it never did, the relevance is fairly marginal. Motsebboh (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the central role that immigration policy has played in Rubio's career, I don't think even you believe that his grandfather's illegal status is truly irrelevant here. More to the point, this topic has been covered extensively in reliable sources and formed a central part of the definitive published biography of Rubio, so its complete exclusion from this article violates our fundamental content policies, including WP:NPOV. That said, given the sorts of people active here (and on candidate articles during election years more generally), I know better than to expect a serious, source- and policy-based discussion. MastCell Talk 20:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful, Mastcell, if you would provide a diff of the alleged deletion of the grandfather information, so that we could pick up that discussion where it allegedly left off (as I already requested above). When you speak disparagingly and condescendingly about the "sorts of people active here", you're certainly not elevating the conversation. I recall people trying to edit the Mitt Romney article to include as much as possible about the polygamy of his ancestors in order to make some point or another, and describing the immigration details of Rubio's ancestors would seem to follow that pattern. You apparently think those details are important vis a vis Rubio's immigration stances, as if Wikipedia has a policy favoring corruption of blood. While discussing the top image, I deliberately omitted that Rubio's opponents often say he looks like a boy, because that's about as relevant to the choice of top image as his immigration policies are to his grandfather.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MastCellAs I said, the relevance of his grandfather's short-lived illegal status is "fairly marginal". I wasn't around for any earlier discussions that may have taken place. A mention in the proper factual context would probably be okay. If his grandfather's late-middle-aged escapade - one that in no way effected the status of his mother who was already living in the US legally - really formed " a central part" of the "definitive" biography of Rubio then a redefining bio is in order. Motsebboh (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant: You removed the material about Rubio's grandfather, along with the supporting reliable sources, here (before your removal, the material had been in the article for approximately 2 years, and had been vetted as appropriate at the BLP noticeboard). Most of the remainder of your comment seems off-topic, to say the least. I'll re-add the material along with supporting sources; given its coverage in such sources, it is a gross violation of our basic content policies, including WP:NPOV, to completely exclude it. I don't think it warrants a huge amount of coverage, either, but 2-3 sentences seems reasonably reflective of existing reliable sources, while we await a new published biography that will be more congenial to Motsebboh. MastCell Talk 00:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the diff. I stand by the removal, because it's pure guilt by association, about which the BLP policy says "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". I'm confident that you also would have sought to maximize discussion of the polygamy involving Romney's great-grandparents, to make some point about Romney's stance on marriage. I guess yellow journalism has a home at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd interpretation of guilt by association. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People in China are held responsible for the actions of their relatives all the time.[6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if Rubio was Chinese that would *almost* be relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this grandfather material is being included, as MastCell says, because of Rubio's immigration policy, why keep that a secret from the reader? Why not say how reliable sources link the grandfather information to the immigration policy? To me, this appears a cheap shot, pretending Rubio is somehow responsible for what his grandfather did, or implying Rubio's policy is hypocritical because of stuff that happened in his family before Rubio was born. If we want a snide BLP that relies upon guilt by association then I would approve inclusion of this material. Guilt by association can involve activity that is not really wrongdoing, and this Chinese example illustrates that (unless you think winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a horrible thing). I get weary of efforts to introduce editorial political slant into Wikipedia; that can be done just as easily by selecting bits and pieces of reliably-sourced biographical material as by making stuff up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: the material is being included because it's covered by multiple independent, reliable sources as a relevant piece of biographical context. That's our standard, and always has been. Most of the reliable sources do link his story to Rubio's immigration policy (e.g. New Yorker, TIME), but given your dogged resistance to even mentioning the subject at all, I'm realistic about the likelihood of us actually following the sources down that road. MastCell Talk 19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this removal, fine, whatever. I added the material to assuage Anythingyouwant's concern about "guilt by association", although I don't think his concern is particularly well-founded. The addition was intended to convey that Rubio was unaware of his grandfather's immigration history until the 2012 biography revealed it, and also to give Rubio the final say in his own words on the subject. If you'd rather remove it then I guess I don't feel strongly enough to argue. MastCell Talk 21:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, couldn't the same standard be used to justify the inclusion of something regarding the following at Hillary Clinton:

In addition to Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham and Bill Clinton's half-brother Roger Clinton found themselves in the spotlight in the furor over last-minute pardons. Hugh Rodham, an attorney, took $400,000 to pursue clemency for two individuals who received it. He later returned the money. Roger Clinton denied taking money but acknowledged he urged pardons for five of his friends. They did not receive them. The former president and first lady said they were unaware Hugh Rodham had been paid to advocate in the cases. "I'm just extremely disappointed in this terrible misjudgment that he made," then-Sen. Clinton said in 2001.[1]

CFredkin (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Gerstein, Josh (January 28, 2016). "Clinton pardon records offer fuel for Hillary's foes". Politico.
Here's an article in the NYT in which Rubio says that it's a "valid point."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/us/politics/marco-rubio-immigration-grandfather.html
Marco Rubio’s Policies Might Shut the Door to People Like His Grandfather
By JEREMY W. PETERS
New York Times
MARCH 5, 2016
In an interview, Mr. Rubio acknowledged that some would see a conflict between the stricter immigration and refugee policies he supports and his grandfather’s experience. Immigration records also show that other members of Mr. Rubio’s family — two aunts and an uncle — were admitted as refugees.
But Mr. Rubio said the difference between then and now is how much more sophisticated foreign infiltrators like the Islamic State have become, and how dangerous they are.
“I recognize that’s a valid point,” the senator said, “But what you didn’t have was a widespread effort on behalf of Fidel Castro to infiltrate into the United States killers who were going to detonate weapons and kill people.”
“Times have changed,” he said. “Policies have to change. If there’s a conflict there, I think that’s just a reality.”
--Nbauman (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing the NYT article. Our BLP says, "Rubio's grandfather remained in the US illegally and re-applied for permanent resident status in 1966...." The NYT article shows that to be false: "Garcia was granted status as a parolee, a gray area of the law that meant he would not get a green card but could remain in the United States....For years after he was allowed back into the United States, Mr. Garcia’s legal status would remain unresolved. His designation as a parolee meant he would not have to leave. But he did not know whether he would ever get a green card. That did not come until almost exactly five years to the day after he was stopped in Miami." So right now we're conveying the false impression that the grandfather was in the US illegally from 1962 to 1966. Are we so eager to score points against Rubio that we need to select a single incident from a single grandparent, and then distort it beyond recognition? To the extent this material belongs at Wikipedia, the best place would be at Political positions of Marco Rubio, because that's what this is all about. Rubio did not even know about his maternal grandfather's parolee status until 2012, so putting this in the early life section at such great length is a very bad choice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether his grandfather was in the country illegally is a legal determination. We should follow WP:RSs and repeat what they say. The AP story says that he "may have temporarily been in U.S. illegally." The NYT story doesn't use the term "illegal" at all. For you to say that the NYT article shows that it's false is your interpretation and is WP:OR. In any case, your proper response would be to change the word "illegal" -- preferably after discussing it in Talk. In any case, Rubio himself says that it's a "fair point." So that argues for leaving it in and certainly against blanking the entire paragraph. --Nbauman (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following WP:RS explicitly or implicitly say that Rubio's grandfather, Pedro Victor, was an "illegal" immigrant. The repeated coverage in many WP:RS indicates that it is significant and belongs in the entry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/marco-rubios-grandfather-had-difficult-transition-to-us/2012/06/17/gJQA4535jV_story.html In a way Pedro Victor’s treatment was not unlike the present-day experiences of many Mexicans and Central Americans who come to the United States legally but later run afoul of visa laws.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/ten-things-you-need-know-about-marco-rubio According to a Rubio biography due out in June by Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, Rubio's grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia was an illegal immigrant to the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/opinion/navarrette-rubio-vp/ New report says Rubio's grandfather entered U.S. illegally from Cuba

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/07/02/nation-of-immigrants Rubio doesn’t discuss Pedro Víctor’s interlude as an illegal immigrant, however, or the police discretion that aided him; --Nbauman (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP again contains false information, thanks to this revert. I will have nothing more to do with this BLP, while it is being used for such purposes. And I regret having ever given this BLP a patina of legitimacy by working to improve it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting WP:CONSENSUS.--Nbauman (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept anything about this. It's disgraceful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous text represented available reliable sources to date. With a new source available (the New York Times article), User:Nbauman has amended our coverage to reflect it. All of that is how Wikipedia works. Rubio's grandfather was described by Rubio himself as his mentor and closest friend during his childhood, and his grandfather also figures prominently in the definitive third-party biography of Rubio and in numerous reliable sources (mostly in relation to his immigration troubles). If you can't bring yourself to understand why this merits a very brief mention in Rubio's biography, then I think it's best you adhere to your vow to have nothing more to do with this article. MastCell Talk 21:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly keep to my vow for the time being, and probably until the election silly season is over. I have become accustomed to this sort of editing from you, MastCell, and I want nothing to do with it. The second paragraph of this article after the lead (which you are defending) now says this:

This is full of weasel words, it says nothing about his grandfather being his mentor and closest friend, and instead focuses obsessively on legal charges against his grandfather which the New York Times has clearly debunked. The New York Times very clearly says that the grandfather was allowed to stay in the US from 1962 to 1966, which we now hide from readers. And you yourself acknowledged that Rubio did not even know about his grandfather's immigration issues until 2012 — issues which all occurred before he was born. You have also acknowledged that the relevance here involves Rubio's immigration position, which is not the subject of this particular section. What's going on here is guilt by association in addition to a propagandistic distortion of what happened. It fails WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:Undue weight. So I am very glad to be done dealing with this sort of crap here at this article. Do what you want with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=708789026&oldid=708756894 keeps getting deleted without consensus. I think it belongs because it's been widely reported, it concisely states the problem, and it gives his response. Does anybody besides this one editor think it should go out? Does anybody else think it should stay? --Nbauman (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rubio's response to a political question doesn't belong in the Early Life section of his biography. It may make more sense to include it in the article on his Political Positions.Eeyoresdream (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relegating it to the article on his political positions would be a WP:POVFORK. This is an important issue, because this political position affects Rubio directly, and it has been repeated by many WP:RS. WP:NPOV requires us to include the views that (1) It may seem hypocritical or self-serving that his own grandfather got into the US by a policy that he would now deny to others, and (2) Rubio believes that the situation now with ISIS is different from the situation then. You can't leave it out and you can't delete either POV. --Nbauman (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The content doesn't belong in the Political Positions section of this article, as the section is in summary form. It MAY belong in some form in the Political Positions article on Rubio. POVFORK doesn't apply as I'm not suggesting that we create a new article.Eeyoresdream (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what the other editors, like User:MastCell, think, of this. --Nbauman (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

FYI, I've started a discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016

The word "Lighweight" in Rubio's name is inappropriate and should be removed. 68.205.139.155 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing second paragraph after the lead

This very long paragraph about Rubio's maternal grandfather is significant because of Rubio's stance about immigration policy, and without the context about his immigration policy readers will not understand why this one facet of the life of one grandparent warrants such great detail. This stuff about his maternal grandfather is presented in context at the article Political positions of Marco Rubio, and I support it there. Also, the maternal grandfather's arrival in 1962 is mentioned later in this main article on Rubio, and I support keeping that too. But all of the second paragraph (after the lead) is undue weight, and now that Rubio's presidential campaign is over perhaps it can be removed without a lot of fuss.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the status of Rubio's Presidential campaign has to do with this aspect of the article. I agree the paragraph has gotten a bit bloated, but in terms of undue weight, I think you've got it twisted around backward. Rubio's grandfather is identified, both by Rubio himself and by his reputable biographers, as perhaps the single closest relative and greatest influence on Rubio. To suggest that we excise this mention of him seems bizarre. The context about his grandfather's immigration difficulties is relevant, just as we discuss prominent first- and second-degree relatives in many other biographies, and more importantly, dozens of independent, reliable sources have identified this aspect of Rubio's family history as relevant and noteworthy. We are supposed to follow reliable sources. MastCell Talk 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the New York Times headline says, the relevance of the grandfather's immigration issues is that Rubio's immigration policies would affect someone similarly situated. And that is fully covered in Political positions of Marco Rubio, as it should be. The second paragraph of this BLP (after the lead) says zippo about Rubio's immigration policies, nor should it, because it's a section about Rubio's early life. We could insert a huge paragraph about the hairstyle of his paternal grandmother, and readers would be just as bewildered about why it's obsessively covered in the early life section. Thousands of BLPs at wikipedia provide biographical information about people who have one or more grandparents who immigrated to the US and remained legally (like Rubio's grandfather), and the only reason this is significant in Rubio's case but not the others is because of Rubio's immigration policies, which are not and should not be described in the early life section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With any politician, aspects of his or her biography blend into and inform his or her political positions. All the more so with someone like Rubio, whose political campaigns have focused so heavily on his personal biography and family history. I think you are trying to create an artificial separation that doesn't exist in actual reliable sources or biographies of Rubio, and that doesn't compute on a common-sense level either. MastCell Talk 01:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the section of this article titled "Early life, education, and entry into politics" should also discuss Rubio's immigration policies and how those policies might or might not affect someone like his grandfather? The New York Times doesn't separate Rubio's policies from the story of his grandfather's immigration (quite the opposite), and so I don't think we should separate them either. It should all be discussed together at Political positions of Marco Rubio. That would be all the more appropriate because Rubio was not born for many years after his grandfather's immigration, because he had no idea until long after he entered politics that his grandfather had a problematic immigration, and because the section about "Early life, education, and entry into politics" already appropriately mentions "Rubio's maternal grandfather who fled communist Cuba in 1962" which is more than enough for that section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Events that occur before one's birth can have an effect on one's life, and may even be relevant to an "Early life" section of a biography. Again, I don't think this is a foreign concept to you, so I'm not sure why we're stuck on it. MastCell Talk 01:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F710786289

Leave a Reply