Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 189: Line 189:


I see that there's been a something of an edit war about this. My 2 cents: I agree with [[User:BringthePaine|BringthePaine]] that Rubio's views on Trump do not belong in the intro. It's been front page news all across the continent, but... doesn't really warrant being in Sen. Rubio's intro. I do think that one's stance on Trump has become one of the most discussed positions a candidate can have in 2016 (and likely for some years hence). Many Republicans are torn between supporting and disowning him, as they weigh the risks of alienating voters/supporters whichever choice they make. One's stance on Trump, i.e., is perhaps more politically significant that, say, one's position on health care. Furthermore, it's all the more significant for those Republicans who, like Rubio, exchanged harsh criticism with Trump during what were perhaps the most personally heated Republican Presidential primaries ever. So I think it's imperative to keep a solid review of Mr. Rubio's changing positions on Trump. Having said that, I don't particularly like the way it's worded right now. The "reversed" overtone sets up the reader to judge Rubio as a hypocrite. I think the content and citations could remain, without [[leading the witness]], as it were.--[[User:Smilo Don|Smilo Don]] ([[User talk:Smilo Don|talk]]) 16:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I see that there's been a something of an edit war about this. My 2 cents: I agree with [[User:BringthePaine|BringthePaine]] that Rubio's views on Trump do not belong in the intro. It's been front page news all across the continent, but... doesn't really warrant being in Sen. Rubio's intro. I do think that one's stance on Trump has become one of the most discussed positions a candidate can have in 2016 (and likely for some years hence). Many Republicans are torn between supporting and disowning him, as they weigh the risks of alienating voters/supporters whichever choice they make. One's stance on Trump, i.e., is perhaps more politically significant that, say, one's position on health care. Furthermore, it's all the more significant for those Republicans who, like Rubio, exchanged harsh criticism with Trump during what were perhaps the most personally heated Republican Presidential primaries ever. So I think it's imperative to keep a solid review of Mr. Rubio's changing positions on Trump. Having said that, I don't particularly like the way it's worded right now. The "reversed" overtone sets up the reader to judge Rubio as a hypocrite. I think the content and citations could remain, without [[leading the witness]], as it were.--[[User:Smilo Don|Smilo Don]] ([[User talk:Smilo Don|talk]]) 16:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
:I agree that is not lead worthy, but that it should be covered in the article. I don't really agree that "reversed" portrays Rubio as a hypocrite, but I have no objection to using more nuanced wording.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:39, 27 October 2016


RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced?

Consensus OPPOSED to replacing Senator Rubio's portrait. (Result: retain image A) Alsee (talk) 08:34, 12 April 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.

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]

References

  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]
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.

New RfC opened: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why 17 photographs?

As of today (I haven't looked at the article previously) there are 16 photographs of Rubio adorning this article, in addition to his official Senate portrait. It looks more like an ad than an encyclopedia article. His high school yearbook picture? Really? Surely some of these could be removed, to improve the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill
FDR
Well, this is a biography, and pictures are useful in biographies. When we've got 'em, why not use 'em? For example, these are used in Wikpedia's biographies of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it comes across as a political ad, that's why. It's unencyclopedic. Churchill and FDR are two of the most important persons of modern history. Who would say that of Rubio? It isn't a question of his politics, but his significance. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to remove the high school pic, please do. I don't think you've mentioned any other particular pic that you don't like, but feel free to mention another one and maybe we can reach agreement about that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I went ahead and removed it for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[1] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[2] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[3] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[4] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[5]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[6] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[7] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[8] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[9] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[10] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

This page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio's position on Donald J Trump for President

I see that there's been a something of an edit war about this. My 2 cents: I agree with BringthePaine that Rubio's views on Trump do not belong in the intro. It's been front page news all across the continent, but... doesn't really warrant being in Sen. Rubio's intro. I do think that one's stance on Trump has become one of the most discussed positions a candidate can have in 2016 (and likely for some years hence). Many Republicans are torn between supporting and disowning him, as they weigh the risks of alienating voters/supporters whichever choice they make. One's stance on Trump, i.e., is perhaps more politically significant that, say, one's position on health care. Furthermore, it's all the more significant for those Republicans who, like Rubio, exchanged harsh criticism with Trump during what were perhaps the most personally heated Republican Presidential primaries ever. So I think it's imperative to keep a solid review of Mr. Rubio's changing positions on Trump. Having said that, I don't particularly like the way it's worded right now. The "reversed" overtone sets up the reader to judge Rubio as a hypocrite. I think the content and citations could remain, without leading the witness, as it were.--Smilo Don (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is not lead worthy, but that it should be covered in the article. I don't really agree that "reversed" portrays Rubio as a hypocrite, but I have no objection to using more nuanced wording.- MrX 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F746480615

Leave a Reply