Talk:Marco Rubio/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Blanking
Entire sections were blanked with no explanation, despite their being sourced. Let's not start editing out parts of articles without reason. Whether you like a politician or not, if it is sourced, I say we should leave it in. Gonzo808 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddb1965 (talk • contribs)
Article is totally cluster****ed
Looks like major edit warring has left this article a total cluster****. May be time for an extended semi-protect to try to get this article back into some decent shape. Safiel (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
RE: Blanking
The blanking was done by a Wikipedia moderator; those were my posts. Here is Wiki's opinion on the matter:
In that statement of Wikipedia policy, it states: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. "
My point of view is that just because the information I posted was "titilating" doesn't mean it was MEANT to be, or was an attempt to hurt Mr. Rubio. Especially the part about different companies I posted that he worked for as a Lobbyist. How could that be construed as "tabloid" fodder? Basically Wikipedia told me that even if a fact is true, they can't post it because it might be harmful to the person. This guy is a political figure running for office, I think the world deserves to know the truths about him.
Here is an excerpt of the removed material (with sources):
Leon County court records show the Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was foreclosing on a home owned by Marco Rubio and state Representative David Rivera, who is running for Congress. Records show the two failed to make payments since January of 2010. The home is currently for sale, listed at $136,500, but court documents show that the balance of the mortgage on June 18th was $134,795. Leon County is the home to the capital city of Florida.
Rubio has a net worth of negative -$103,000.
http://www.wctv.tv/APNews/headlines/96686674.html
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/files/documents.pdf
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/marco-rubios-lavish-rise-to-the-top/1079473
Marco Rubio served as a Lobbyist in Miami from 1997 to 2005, according to court records in Miami-Dade county. Rubio registered as a Lobbyist seven times; three times in 1997, on mundane zoning and code enforcement efforts; twice in 1998 on behalf of a real estate effort and something called the American Sales & Management Org.; and once each in 2001 and 2002 as agent for companies listed as the Main Line Corp., a computer equipment company, and Pan American, a developer. Rubio filed a form closing out his record as a Lobbyist on May 31, 2005.
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EDIT THIS INFO SO IT IS NOT 'TITILATING' AND PERCEIVED AS A DANGER TO MR. RUBIO????
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdaveloose (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Best known?
The article includes He is best known for his book 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future. I think that he is best known for his 2010 U.S. Senate campaign. Is some actual source for that "best known" claim? --Dezidor (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hearsay
"In spite of the fact that Harry Reid said that he is suprised that anyone of Hispanic origin can be a Republican, Marco is one.[1]"
Regardless of whether or not this is hearsay (note source), many people of Hispanic origin are Republican— it's relatively common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.9.139 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Needs an editorial sweep... BAD!
Lots of grammar and punctuation issues. Also, "GOP" is a little informal for an encyclopedia entry, don't you think? This isn't supposed to be a newspaper aggregate--it's supposed to be a reference document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.0.80 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Winner
Marco Rubio has won the seat! - 99.150.203.11 (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal Life
It might be fun to mention that he's reportedly a fan of gangsta rap and that he was listening to "Sexy Bitch" while preparing for a debate with Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek.--Heinleinscat (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Religion
Just yesterday, there was a statement correctly informing that Rubio attends the Christ Fellowship Church. To remove this statement, and only identify him as Catholic, is misleading. It is more complete to include this information. However, if there is no agreement on this, it is best to remove his religion on the box at the right, and leave it in the text, until he clarifies his religious denomination. {{desertann}}
"but has apparently converted to Evangelical Protestantism, as he attends the Christ Fellowship Church in West Kendall, Florida." This line is both unfounded, as Rubio claims to be true to the Catholic faith of his parents, and judgmental. The diction is both condescending and unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.227 (talk)
- Yeah, and there's no source. It said Catholic just yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.239.161 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is locked, but I strongly suggest that the references to Rubio being a Southern Baptist and former Catholic be removed. As far as I know Rubio identifies himself as a Catholic. In addition, there is only one news report I was able to identify that says he attends a nondenominational Protestant Church (many subsequent sources cite to this). If necessary we could simply write "Rubio identifies himself as a Catholic but according to one report, he has attended the Christ Fellowship Church for the past six years" or something like that. In addition, it is especially misleading to write that he is a "Southern Baptist" in the bio box. Again, he identifies himself as a Catholic as far as I can tell. In addition, the Protestant church he attends defines itself as nondenominational and is only loosely, if at all, affiliated with Southern Baptism. I hope someone will make these changes. Lepanto (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I have taken it upon myself to police this article with regard to Rubio's religion. I want to re-iterate that every indication from Rubio is that he considers himself Catholic. There is only one source that suggests otherwise (and I cited to it in the article, thus I'm not seeking to hide the controversy). In addition, Rubio's staff re-iterated today that he is Catholic. I will endeavor to make sure the Wikipedia continues to recognize Rubio's consistent self-identification as Catholic in the absence of any clear and verifiable evidence to the contrary. Lepanto (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rubio attends the non-denominational Christ Fellowship church. It's clearly WP:UNDUE to present one newspaper blog's claim that this church's beliefs are incompatible with Catholicism. Rd232 talk 11:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The best path is to go by his own self-identification. Besides that reference to the Evangelical church can be traced back to only one news report and there is no evidence that he attends that church to the exclusion of the Catholic Church. Hopefully the self-appointed inquisitors will stop constantly trying to edit Rubio's profile to say he's not Catholic.24.193.115.37 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why it's wrong to point out that for the last six years Mr. Rubio has attended Christ Fellowship Church, West Kendall, Fla. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/01/what-is-marco-rubios-religion/ This is fact, not commentary. Let people know the facts and draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, shame on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.82.228 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Catholics try to hold on to anyone who doesn't condemn or damn them publicly. This guy is doing this to appeal to both sides of the Hispanic vote, the old Catholics and the new Evangelicals. It's all about public image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.161.113 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
High speed rail
Where does Senator Rubio stand on Govenor Scott's decision to sabotage the high speed rail system by refusing, without basis, the federal grant to Florida for financing most of the project.
One, this is not a forum. Two, your question is completely loaded. Three, your motivation seems to be to make the senator look bad. It is people with this mentality that cause wikipedia to be accused of having a liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.170.21 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
"WaPo reveals"
I changed the wording in this blp slightly from the Post's revelation to its argument, per wp:NPOV. Also, in view of a broader definition of exile, l removed this biography's implication that Wikipedia believes it false to term Rubio's parents exiles--which in my opinion should be at least be toned down to something like "...so and so believes Rubio's parents cannot be considered exiles" if it is to be reinstated.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with both changes, but for the moment I have reverted the one I consider particularly objectionable. Rubio has been perfectly clear in his own use of the word exile what that word means in his own view: his parents were forced out by Castro in 1959. In any event, we can use the word itself because it is the word Rubio uses, and I don't think we should get into WP:OR about its meaning in some sort of "broader sense". As for WashPo "revelations" -- I don't see the problem here either: the WashPo revealed what had not been widely known before, that Rubio's parents had arrived in the US in 1956, not 1959. That's not an "argument". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This is of course a blp.
Whether they left Cuba before or after Mr. Castro’s takeover, he said, the point was that they felt they could not return. “That is an undisputed fact and to suggest otherwise is outrageous,” he said. Sen. Rubio’s argument, essentially, is that his parents are still “exiles,” as opposed to non-political “immigrants,” because after Mr. Castro took over they felt they could not move back to Cuba.---PALM BEACH POST
Please provide RSes before reinsertion of this controversial assertion by the Washington Post.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- What a puzzling statement. If you have concerns about whether the Washington Post itself meets WP:RS, then I suggest a visit to WP:RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- <sighs> Pls re-read my initial comment above. The assertion can be inserted in the encyclopedia in the form "according to the Washington Post," followed by "Rubio agues" or some such; it simply is inappropriate for Wikipedia to endorse an allegation deemed controversial per a substantial portion of reliable sources giving the matter coverage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
To the extent that the WaPo article presents opinions, WP:BLP essentially requires that they be so identified. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest wrinkle
- Politico: "Rubio had often suggested in interviews and on his official Senate website that his parents fled the Castro regime. The Post said Rubio had “embellished” his family history to ingratiate himself with the politically powerful exile community in Florida, an accusation Rubio has forcefully denied. ¶ The senator has conceded he may have gotten some dates wrong, but he has continued to insist he’s the “son of Cuban exiles” because his parents never could return to their native country after 1961, when they realized their country had taken a turn for the worse under Castro. However, new discrepancies in Rubio’s story surfaced this week based on his parents’ 1956 immigration application, which shows they never intended to return to Cuba. ¶ “Permanently,” Rubio’s father answered when asked how long they intended to stay in the U.S. ¶ Yet inside Little Havana cafes and on Cuban exile radio stations, people are standing by Rubio. So are members of the Cuban-American delegation on Capitol Hill."
- --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting -- though I'm not sure our article here needs to cover every wrinkle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know what others think, but I don't believe this warrants a separate section in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I originally wrote it in the "Early life" section because it has to do with his family background. I think that frame is more relevant than the fact that there have been recent newspaper stories about it in the course of recent political campaigns. -- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC).
- It is a notable controversy within Rubio's current career, per the RSes. If it is not notable enough to be covered there, I dare say it is not notable enough to cover in his blp at all. (Eg - and not to argue wp:OTHERSTUFF but - apparently Aqua Buddha is not considered a notable part of Sen. Paul's early life, either. In fact, it doesn't even get a mention in his campaign section--although, IMO, if it were to be included anywhere, it would be there, per the incident's becoming notable within that context. Also, sexual assault allegations wrt Herman Cain are not in his restaurant assoc. section but in his pres. campaign section....And apparently a blp is a higher hurdle for such details than even a separate article. Barack Obama and Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama make no mention of Ayers or Wright, albeit articles exist for each um quote controversy end quote.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would put the material in the 2010 election section without a separate header. I don't care about other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Its relevance goes beyond the most recent election, though. I agree it doesn't need a separate header, but it isn't clear to me where it goes if not in "early life". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The campaign is a better place for it than Early life. The relevance is clearly to him supposedly using the story as a way of getting votes. Putting it in Early life makes it sounds like someone who just misremembers his own history, which isn't even close to the way it's being represented in the media, or even as responded to by him. Its endurance as a story beyond the campaign doesn't mean it can't go in that section.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay -- good enough for me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The campaign is a better place for it than Early life. The relevance is clearly to him supposedly using the story as a way of getting votes. Putting it in Early life makes it sounds like someone who just misremembers his own history, which isn't even close to the way it's being represented in the media, or even as responded to by him. Its endurance as a story beyond the campaign doesn't mean it can't go in that section.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Its relevance goes beyond the most recent election, though. I agree it doesn't need a separate header, but it isn't clear to me where it goes if not in "early life". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would put the material in the 2010 election section without a separate header. I don't care about other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is a notable controversy within Rubio's current career, per the RSes. If it is not notable enough to be covered there, I dare say it is not notable enough to cover in his blp at all. (Eg - and not to argue wp:OTHERSTUFF but - apparently Aqua Buddha is not considered a notable part of Sen. Paul's early life, either. In fact, it doesn't even get a mention in his campaign section--although, IMO, if it were to be included anywhere, it would be there, per the incident's becoming notable within that context. Also, sexual assault allegations wrt Herman Cain are not in his restaurant assoc. section but in his pres. campaign section....And apparently a blp is a higher hurdle for such details than even a separate article. Barack Obama and Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama make no mention of Ayers or Wright, albeit articles exist for each um quote controversy end quote.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I originally wrote it in the "Early life" section because it has to do with his family background. I think that frame is more relevant than the fact that there have been recent newspaper stories about it in the course of recent political campaigns. -- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC).
- Don't know what others think, but I don't believe this warrants a separate section in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting -- though I'm not sure our article here needs to cover every wrinkle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"Unsupported media-driven [veep] speculation"
Seems maybe a bit redundant--? Speculation is speculation. Rmv'd compound adjectival, making it just "speculation."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Present religious status
This edit DIFF removed sourcing for the blp subject's present status as a praticing Catholic/as an attendee at the Baptist church, substituting wording which misleadingly references the subject as having been Catholic and having attended in the past the Baptist Church. Some of the deleted sourcing has been restored, with the pertinent pgrf reworded DIFF to correct the inaccuracy.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Why no mention of his credit card spending scandal?
This one? http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article1075692.ece
Why is this white washed? 76.121.23.59 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Good question, I have read many accounts of this. Wikipietime (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Silly season again. He paid for all his personal expenses. The party paid for no personal expenses. Part of the Crist campaign stuff from two years ago - and of no actual credible value to a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Multiple citations are lacking
- Note There are multiple claims in the article that are not backed up by ANY sources, much less reliable ones. I have tagged the article as its lacks sources, and has issues concerning references. Where the info in not controversial I have simply tagged the passage, instead of removing the content. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits
An IP has now thrice attempted to alter the article in ways that are non-neutral. First, they removed an image from the article with no explanation. Second, they removed an assertion that was fact-tagged only last month (this particular change doesn't bother me that much, but it's unexplained). Finally, they changed some language about Rubio's amendment. The pre-existing version said:
Rubio's amendment, co-sponsored by Joe Manchin (D - WV), to allow employers to restrict health coverage for contraception based on religious or moral grounds did not pass the Senate.
The IP's version said:
Rubio's amendment, co-sponsored by Joe Manchin (D - WV), to allow employers exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for religious or moral reasons, failed to pass the Senate.
Just the use of the term Obamacare should be enough to reject the change, but the pre-existing language also more faithfully tracks the cited source.
I've now reverted 3x and warned the IP about edit-warring (the IP has been blocked for edit-warring recently).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Baptized as a Mormon
Collect sez that the talk page previously discussed and rejected inclusion of the fact that Rubio not only attended a Mormon church but was also baptized into that church (source). I see no such discussion on the talk page. Never mind -- even assuming Collect's edit summary is false, we can form consensus in the usual way. (Even so, given that it's false the reversion should not have been conducted on that basis.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try [1] where you participated. The stuff about Rubio really being a Mormon was deemed by others to not belong in the BLP. Your addition has been out for nearly three months (enough that I rather assumed that you agreed to it per your edit summary approving the edits I made) - if you wish to add it in, get a WP:CONSENSUS first, please. [2] was 25 Feb. Not added since. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you mean BLPN, then say BLPN. You'll note that I retracted my favorable comment about your edit. I propose to restore the six words that I added earlier and hope to find that others participating here support doing so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- And I surmise otherwise - it is trivia of the first water, making a big claim about a child being baptized into the LDS church while his family attended that church for a few years. It, in fact, says absolutely nothing about his religious beliefs or practices at all. Cheers - and remember this is still a WP:BLP with specific rules about categorising people by religious or sexual beliefs. Collect (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- He was a member of the LDS Church, and thus was a Mormon. It is fair to say that Rubio was formerly a Mormon. To say otherwise does not reflect the facts. Look at Sam Brownback's page and see how it reflects my multiple religious affiliations. See Newt Gingrich as well.Theseus1776 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- And I surmise otherwise - it is trivia of the first water, making a big claim about a child being baptized into the LDS church while his family attended that church for a few years. It, in fact, says absolutely nothing about his religious beliefs or practices at all. Cheers - and remember this is still a WP:BLP with specific rules about categorising people by religious or sexual beliefs. Collect (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you mean BLPN, then say BLPN. You'll note that I retracted my favorable comment about your edit. I propose to restore the six words that I added earlier and hope to find that others participating here support doing so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this would be a close case, that is to say it wouldn't be wrong either way, and perhaps it still is a close case, but I can't get around the fact that when he was a Mormon, he was just a kid. Simply putting it in the infobox that he was a Mormon presents that fact while stripping away all of the context, including that he is not likely at such a young age to have fully considered decision based on deeply held beliefs—his parents decided to try out LDS, so he became Mormon. The right place for this is the prose, not the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The source says that not only did the family 'try out' Mormonism, it was because of the young Marco that they did this, and also because of him that they switched back to Catholicism as well. It says he seemed to have a striking amount of insight about things and an unusual amount of influence in his family's religious choice. -- Avanu (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: the WP:BLP/N discussion seems to have a consensus that it is misleading to readers to place any such material in the infobox, that readers can read the body of the article if they wish, where proper weight is given. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, the BLPN thread is hardly persuadive. That said, because Rubio was so young and his experience so brief I don't think it's justified to put in in the infobox. And I have a lot of respect for Mormons, especially the emphasis they place on family values. Sorry, Theseus.– Lionel (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No such thing as "the Obama White House"
I don't know who is going through all the political pages on wikipedia and using this term to attack the President everywhere they can, but I'm getting sick of it. I can barely find any useable information on these pages anymore because I have to read a bunch rubbish about "the Obama White House did this" or "the Obama White House did that" (and it's always based on opinion and the articles cited say nothing of the sort). If you don't know WHO specifically acted to do whatever it was you're claiming was done, you simply don't know what you're talking about and should refrain from editing wikipedia. Thank you. 98.203.17.49 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality on parents immigration to U.S.
- Rubio has denied the Washington Post story on his parents exile, so the Washington Post Story should not be reported as fact.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A recent edit (repeated three times, no less), fails to achieve NPOV by presenting only Rubio's perspective ("Rubio corrected previous statements"), without presenting the Washington Post assertion that Rubio subsequently denied ("embellishments"). The version Thomas Paine is pushing is not even sensible -- the passage as currently written is confusing. I intend to revert it, but it will apparently need discussion here yet again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The previous version did not present it as fact -- it presented the WP claim and attributed the claim to the WP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Washington Post claim of 'embellishments' should not be written as fact, since it was rejected as false. It should not be titled as a controversy, or arranged in the layout as a political attack on Rubio. Rubio corrected the statements and the dates which he did not recall, that is not an "embelleshment." The Washington Post should not be featured in the article, the Washington Post is not the elected Senator from Florida, Rubio is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newpaper.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)"
- Your own views on what constitutes an embellishment are not relevant. You clearly want to present Rubio from Rubio's point of view only. Doing so is incompatible with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rubio's statements make it clear that the Washington Post story is false, the term "embellishment" is not factual, but an unsupported Washington Post opinion. Wikipedia is not a newpaper and is not obligated to document the opinions of newpapers.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rubio's statements make it clear that he believes -- or at least wants others to believe -- that the story is false. Nothing more. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rubio's statements make it clear that the Washington Post story is false, the term "embellishment" is not factual, but an unsupported Washington Post opinion. Wikipedia is not a newpaper and is not obligated to document the opinions of newpapers.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your own views on what constitutes an embellishment are not relevant. You clearly want to present Rubio from Rubio's point of view only. Doing so is incompatible with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Washington Post claim of 'embellishments' should not be written as fact, since it was rejected as false. It should not be titled as a controversy, or arranged in the layout as a political attack on Rubio. Rubio corrected the statements and the dates which he did not recall, that is not an "embelleshment." The Washington Post should not be featured in the article, the Washington Post is not the elected Senator from Florida, Rubio is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newpaper.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)"
- The edit now correctly informs that Rubio 'corrected statements that implied' that his parents left Cuba to flee Castro and that they could not return there, facts which somehow were left out of the previous version, while the previous version gave high feature to the Washington Post attack on Rubio. Featuring Washington Post embellishment assertion based attack as factual is not a neutral point of view. The assertion of embellishment by the Washington Post is nothing more than an assertion. So, the issue is why is assertion of embellishment notable and what about such assertion should be stated if anything? The beliefs of assertions of the Washington Post or other newspapers are not particularly relevant, notable, or factual in this case. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nomosk that the Post material should not have been removed and replaced by Rubio's statements unless there is a consensus for doing so. Nomosk is also correct that the version before Thomas changed it did not present the Washington Post article as fact but clearly attributed it to the Post. And, Thomas, you are being disruptive by insisting on leaving the material in without first having a discussion.
As an aside, I am changing back the lead to the way it was as it's clearer. "Part of the process" is indeed a quote from the article, but (1) we are not quoting the article and (2) Romney's statement has to be viewed in context. The headline and the body of the Daily News article make it clear that Romney is vetting Rubio as a possible VP running mate. The reader will only be mystified by the nebulous phrase "part of the process".
Bottom line: I am putting the article back the way it was. Stay here and discuss changes related to the exile controversy and the vetting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. User Bbb23 should not delete citations and statements which inform that Rubio corrected statements that implied that his parents left Cuba to flee Castro and that they could not return there, facts which somehow were left out and now Bbb23 removed them without discussion. That seems to be highly disruptive, especially in the midst of a discussion. It restores a version which gives high feature to the Washington Post attack on Rubio which is not a neutral point of view. The assertion of embellishment is hardly factual and deletions of Rubio's corrections makes it even more a violation of the wiki policy on neutrality.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, before your changes, the article was nicely balanced. It reported on the Post's article with attribution, and it reported Rubio's denials/clarifications/whatever. You tilted it 180 degrees so that the challenges to Rubio were eliminated with extensive commentary on Rubio's statements. How can that be neutral? The Post is a reliable source. Your opinion that it was an attack piece is nothing more than your opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the specific denials by Rubio were not included and are still not included in the article, only the Washington Post featured political attack of alleged imbellishments. Rubio denied the embellishments assertion by the Washington Post as false, yet the word deny doesn't even appear in your version of the article, its Rubio's view that it is false. Your version of the article fails to achieve a neutral point of view since it specifically includes the Washington Post embellisment claim without including Rubio's specific rejection of the claim which is documented by sources. Rubio corrected previous statements that implied his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, since Rubio could not recall the exact dates which showed they had left Cuba in 1956 during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista to seek economic opportunity in the United States, but then were unable to return to Cuba once Fidel Casto came to power.[3][4]. The Washington Post claim of 'embellishments' should not be written as fact, it is assertion, and it was rejected as false. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's just plain silly. Rubio's response is included in the current version (and it's not mine) of the article. In fact, in your version (and it is yours), you included the same stuff as is in the current version but added to it AND removed the Post article completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rubios specific denial of the the Washington Post claim of embellishments in not included in your version. You still haven't made the case why the Washington Post assertion should even be included anyway since it is not a fact. Its not really necesssary to include the names of newpapers and their opinions in a biography article. But if it is included, Rubio's specific denial of it should be included as well, since it is documented in the sources. If the Washington Post assertion is not included, only Rubio's correction of the statement should be included. Its not really necessary for the Washington Post assertion of embellishments to be included since Rubio explained his remarks. The selected response from Rubio in the article does not address his denial of the embellishments claim. The embellishment claim shouldn't have its own heading as your version does, that is WP:Undue weight.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I won't respond any more to your circular repetitions. However, your comment about a separate subsection header has some merit, although it's not easy to figure out where to put it. I don't like it in Personal life. I didn't like it where you put it. The article has some structural limitations at the moment as to where to put certain kinds of material. For example, the vetting business shouldn't be in the lead without being in the body, but where to put it in the body? Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on these issues from you and from anyone else following our little tete-a-tete.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rubios specific denial of the the Washington Post claim of embellishments in not included in your version. You still haven't made the case why the Washington Post assertion should even be included anyway since it is not a fact. Its not really necesssary to include the names of newpapers and their opinions in a biography article. But if it is included, Rubio's specific denial of it should be included as well, since it is documented in the sources. If the Washington Post assertion is not included, only Rubio's correction of the statement should be included. Its not really necessary for the Washington Post assertion of embellishments to be included since Rubio explained his remarks. The selected response from Rubio in the article does not address his denial of the embellishments claim. The embellishment claim shouldn't have its own heading as your version does, that is WP:Undue weight.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's just plain silly. Rubio's response is included in the current version (and it's not mine) of the article. In fact, in your version (and it is yours), you included the same stuff as is in the current version but added to it AND removed the Post article completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the specific denials by Rubio were not included and are still not included in the article, only the Washington Post featured political attack of alleged imbellishments. Rubio denied the embellishments assertion by the Washington Post as false, yet the word deny doesn't even appear in your version of the article, its Rubio's view that it is false. Your version of the article fails to achieve a neutral point of view since it specifically includes the Washington Post embellisment claim without including Rubio's specific rejection of the claim which is documented by sources. Rubio corrected previous statements that implied his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, since Rubio could not recall the exact dates which showed they had left Cuba in 1956 during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista to seek economic opportunity in the United States, but then were unable to return to Cuba once Fidel Casto came to power.[3][4]. The Washington Post claim of 'embellishments' should not be written as fact, it is assertion, and it was rejected as false. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It could be placed when it occurred, under his Senate service. Personal life and marriage can go under Early life, education, and family.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I understand you're focusing on when, but it's not really part of his senate service. Just because it occurred while he's a senator doesn't mean it belongs in a section entitled U.S. Senate. My guess is we'd have to create a new section called "Other activities" or something innocuous like that. Then we could put the vetting thing in there as well as the exiles thing (without giving it its own subsection). The other option is to change the structure to be time frames without other labels, or perhaps time frames with more expansive labels, like "2011-present - U.S. Senate and other activities" (or "other events"?). I'm just kind of thinking out loud as I'm not crazy about any of these options.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, before your changes, the article was nicely balanced. It reported on the Post's article with attribution, and it reported Rubio's denials/clarifications/whatever. You tilted it 180 degrees so that the challenges to Rubio were eliminated with extensive commentary on Rubio's statements. How can that be neutral? The Post is a reliable source. Your opinion that it was an attack piece is nothing more than your opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
labeling him as Mormon or Former Mormon
IIRC, the prior discussions had been that the iterated insertions that "Rubio was a Mormon" or the like was UNDUE, and that the entire religion section had been given excessive weight in the past. I note tht he was just labeled a former Mormon, which I regard as being aking to all the huge discussions already held. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The Daily Show
User:TeeTylerToe has added the following section to the article, all cited to the show:
On June 25th, 2012 Marco Rubio appeared in an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. In this interview Marco Rubio stated that senate republicans position using the filibuster 120-140 times per session was a direct response to the Senate majority leadership preventing republican amendments from being placed on active legislation. He said that "I'm not in it so both sides can get something out of it", and the contradictory quotes "We can't grow the budget with cuts" and "Clinton grew the economy coming together with republicans to cut spending". He stated that the republicans would force a 60 vote majority for anything to pass in the senate unless it didn't have something the republicans thought was a "bad idea", and he said that the filibuster is "the only tool the minority has in this system to protect itself and to try to force votes on the amendments". Talking about his frustration with the stalemate in congress caused by the republican filibusters, he complained about how he couldn't believe that in the two years he'd been there the senate hadn't addressed anything, that "the senate hasn't even passed a budget in 4-3.5 years", but he denied that the republican filibuster was the problem, or that his stated refusal of any compromise with democrats could be to blame.
He has been reverted twice, once by Collect and once by me, but that hasn't stopped him. I've left a 3RR warning on his Talk page and, hopefully, he will come here to discuss the material per WP:BRD. After I finish writing this, I will revert the material once more.
There are several problems with the addition. It is too much. It doesn't need its own section (although adding material to this article is problematic as the structure limits what you can do). It doesn't need this many quotes. It's also hard to know which quotes should be used - that requires some judgment. The phrase "contradictory quotes" is inappropriate edit commentary. It is poorly worded with contractions, poor capitalization, improper formatting, and other stylistic problems.
I don't have a problem including some of the material, but the best way to do that, in my view, would be to weave it into the article in spots where Rubio's comments are apposite. Otherwise, we just become a platform to articulate Rubio's views on a wide list of issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Politicians do not have one position over the course of their lives. What Abraham Lincoln may have said in a state of the union a year before the civil war may be different from what he stated in a state of the union a year after the civil war. It is common to separate sections for different appearances of a politician.
- It needs this many quotes to prevent it from being seen as biased. Also to prevent misinterpretations. A politician could say something that could be interpreted many ways. By using more quotes than in an article about, for instance, the color blue, it preserves the context and wording of what the politician said.
- The phrase "contradictory quotes" is appropriate because it's not commentary. If in the same interview he said "I am a member of the democratic party, and not the republican party", then in the same interview said "I am a member of the republican party, and not the democratic party" it would be appropriate to point out this contradiction.
- Any article with one miscapitalized letter should be totally blanked. This is good wiki policy, additionally it is the only way to be sure. I am not a veteran editor, but capitalization does not strike me as something that needs to be discussed in a talk page.
- "Otherwise, we just become a platform to articulate Rubio's views on a wide list of issues." This is troubling. While I agree that, for instance, whether Rubio is pro boxer, or whether he is pro brief is not important, he is a sitting US senator. His views on the filibuster, and whether or not spending cuts effect the deficit do seem like they belong in an article on him, particularly when those are both very important issues.
- finally, revert wars start with the first revert. If only 1% of your reverts start revert wars, and you only revert 10 things, you only have a 10% chance of starting a revert war, but if you revert whole sections for reasons like capitalizations, or because you think there were too many quotes, you are going to start a lot of edit wars, and more than all the edit wars you start, you are going to put to the torch the careful contributions of many many editors.
- It is very insulting to treat other editors like vandals who deface articles. While it seems to have been adopted by many editors, burning the village to save the village is not wiki policy, and it is a very very poor interpretation of the "be bold" concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- You weren't treated like a vandal. Your edits were undone with explanations. The formatting, MOS issues can be fixed (and there were a lot of them, btw), but if that had been the only problem, I wouldn't have removed the material. Pointing out that quotes are "contradictory" is commentary, no matter how obvious you think it is - it's your interpretation. The reader can decide whether his quotes contradict each other. The broader and more important substantive questions I raised have still not been addressed. We'll need to wait for other editors to contribute.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The undo button was created to streamline the process of reverting vandalism. It is an easy and powerful tool. It is a very tempting tool. It is very easy to yield to the temptation of it. It is also a very aggressive tool. A tool that causes a lot of conflict. Editors use it hastily because a section of an article on their watchlist doesn't meet that personal editor's standard for referencing, or because it has too many quotes, or it has too few quotes, or it's too long, or it's too short, or it has too much content, or it has too little content.
- they use it because it's easy. They liked THEIR article THEIR way, and some editor had the temerity to edit THEIR article and their edit has poor capitalization, or poor style! HOW DARE THEY! So these editors yield to the temptation of undo, and they start edit wars for things that could easily be fixed with a single google if it's a reference, or one pass through with a spellchecker bot. Such hostile editing is explicitly against wiki policy, but the undo button is so easy, and it's right there, and many editors feel like it's the correct interpretation of "be bold".
- It's not.
- Not according to Wikipedia:Alternatives to reversion. You want a discussion that nobody takes part in. I'm willing to come to a consensus on the content, but there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to do that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's an essay and doesn't even say what you say it says. The "mechanism" for reaching a consensus on content IS what we're doing, although you're not making it easy - discussing it on the Talk page. That should always be the first step after WP:BRD. Even the essay says that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not according to Wikipedia:Alternatives to reversion. You want a discussion that nobody takes part in. I'm willing to come to a consensus on the content, but there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to do that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia, based on MediaWiki software, allows for editors to revert the edits of themselves or other editors. This feature was installed to enable quick changes of mistakes." That's not an ambiguous statement. And you and collect have barely put any effort into discussing the section, what you have put a great deal of effort into is organizing a lynch mob for me over false accusations. I may be the barbarian clumsily trying to add content to the article, but you're putting all your energy into being the conspirator, trying to steer palace intrigue so that you win imaginary power and influence.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- TTT, that sort of post is not appropriate for this talk page. At some point you will likely have to accept that you have not convinced others of the merits of your desired edit. If you then need to vent your frustration, please find a different location for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Were that post to be viewed in a vacuum, perhaps you would be right. In context, however, I did not make some random post randomly insulting some random editor. If Bbb23's responses were about, for instance, the change I made to pointing out the contradiction in Rubio's remarks, or the other changes I'd made, I would be discussing the content of the article. Instead Bbb23's responses are hostile attacks, going hand in hand with the conflict he's creating. I would rather not be squabbling, defending myself, or being falsely accused by multiple editors. I obviously would like to be finding some compromise to add information about Rubio's interview to this article. But what I get are attacks. Now you are coming here and saying that I am the sole aggressor. I am not even the initiator. If your goal was to throw fuel on the conflict, and create more divisions, job well done.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Also note that Wikipedia editors are unlikely to view the interview as "notable" unless and until other reliable sources report thereon. Collect (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Although The Daily Show itself is a reliable source, Rubio's comments are generally not noteworthy unless viewed in some context (see my note above) or another source picks up on them and carries them forward, thereby also giving them some context. Otherwise, they are just a bunch of sound bites, which politicians do all day long and we don't report each sound bite.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to be slightly more clear, I think the word we should be using is 'due', not 'notable'. New additions to an article/topic don't need their own standalone notability (in the Wikipedia sense), but they do need to be WP:DUE. While Jon Stewart has a habit of making great political points on his shows, the long quote you open with at the top simply sounds like you've inferred a lot from it. You also seem to be quoting directly from the source here, which means you must source analyis of the Daily Show interview to some other media outlet. The problem is that while the Daily Show often is a great secondary source, you can't put down your own conclusions based on what they said. It must be something the Daily Show said directly. For example, did the Daily Show say those two terms are contradictory, or did they just play them side by side? -- Avanu (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't a daily show segment. Stewart was interviewing Rubio. Rubio dismissed addressing the deficit with cuts saying that you can't cut your way out of the deficit, and you can only address the deficit by "growing the economy", but later when stewart asked when the economy grew, and what were the circumstances of that growth, rubio responded that it was Clinton joining republicans in cutting spending. That said I later edited that part out replacing it with (paraphrasing) "Rubio's initial position was that you can't cut your way out of the deficit, but later conceded that the spending cuts of the 90s contributed to revenue, to a decrease in the deficit, and increased growth.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I linked to two news outlets reporting on the interview. Even if you ignored the changes I made to the text, I've mentioned it here in the talk discussion and other places. Reading that would have taken time away from you placing edit war tags on my talk page though, and forced you to actually try to discuss the changes instead of escalate the conflict. Cheers.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Um -- I think it is clear that you were absolutely engaged in edit war, that my polite warning was one of three relating thereto, that making 5 reverts in under 24 hours is past the 3RR bright-line rule, and that you seem quite unwilling to recognize that where zero other editors back your edit that you possibly might reconsider your own infallibility. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I linked to two news outlets reporting on the interview. Even if you ignored the changes I made to the text, I've mentioned it here in the talk discussion and other places. Reading that would have taken time away from you placing edit war tags on my talk page though, and forced you to actually try to discuss the changes instead of escalate the conflict. Cheers.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't even make 4 reverts, which is why Bbb23's accusations were false. Of the three, one was by Bbb23 who trumped up the accusations, another was by DBigXray parroting Bbb23's false accusations, and the third was you who doesn't know anything about what's happening. And for the hat trick even your claim that I'm the only one to support the edit is wrong. Wrong on all counts, like Bbb23, and DBigXray. I'm sure you're a great editor with the 0 for 3 track record you have. Cheers!TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
[5] 16:41 4 July [6] 16:48 [7] 19:32 [8] 19:39
Four reverts in inder 3 hours. And you insist you did not edit war? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's all drop the edit war issue. The admin closed it as stale but warned TTT. There's no reason to rehash the revert issue and whether it was indeed a technical violation of 3RR, only constituted edit-warring without a technical breach, or neither. Let's please move on. TTT, could you please post here the links you mentioned above ("two news outlets reporting on the interview"). I'm sorry, but I don't recall that, and I'd like to see them. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- The way you're dropping whether or not the breach was technical, and the way you're dropping your interpretation of the result of your accusation? Remember the fourth revert you accused me of that turned out to be me adding two references per the talk page discussion? The fourth edit actually was me adding two references. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=500694753&oldid=500694616TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dusdebes-Rubio and immigration claims
The edits I did to the personal section were, first, to address the limited information presented regarding Ms Dousdebes-Rubio (M Rubio's spouse) -- that her heritage is also hispanic, that she had had various employment before becoming a stay at home mother, and that the Senator's acquaintance with Ms Dousdebes predated the single job originally indicated for her (cheerleader). These accomplish a more balanced view of his spouse than was present before.
Second, the original presentation of the "controversy" over the history of the Senator's parents immigration failed to indicate (a) that the Sentaor's office responded formally to the articles, (b) that the Senator's web pages were modified in response, and (c) the WP article raising the questions actually supported the timeline provided by the Senator's office, through its examination of the relevant passport entries. Once again, adding these referenced facts accomplish a more balanced view than was present before.
I have no personal or professional relationship with the Senator or his office, and have no partisan interest in this person or any of his endeavors. I have only edited from the desire for the article to be balanced and accurate. To delete the edits without discussion here, and with only the nonsensical "rv as way over-the-top" insults the process of wikipedia writing and editing. Find specific fault with what is written, with the same care in referencing your sources, or let the scholarly revision effort stand. Prof D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs)
- I'm probably not going to wade into the heart of this dispute, but you are wrong about the last part, and perhaps you should learn more about Wikipedia before attempting to lecture us on insults to the process. For any article, the onus is on the editor who wishes to change it from the status quo. Thus, if you are reverted, the correct course is usually to let the reversion of your edits stand, and go to the talk page to discuss the matter. This article is a biography of a living person, so that becomes even more important, unless of course the thrust of your edit is to remove unsourced information, which is not the case here. So I am going to revert you again, and I hope this time you will accept that and allow this discussion to take its course before engaging further on the main page. -Rrius (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note, critically, in this case, I have explained in clear and unbiased terms the reasons for the corrections offered to the article (see above). Note also that the brief edits expand upon information from a source already given in the original article (the Wash Post article), and add further traceable, relvant citations. Bottom line, the edits improve the accuracy and substance of the article. (I'm a Prof, and so feel professionally capable of making this statement.) I ask acceptance that it is the person reverting that is making changes without any discussion. Why is the earlier version surpassingly sacrosanct, with reversion to it being allowed without discussion? Why is a higher standard held to for reversion, than for productive change? Bottom line, I ask either: (1) That the edits I created stand, until there is active discussion about the specifics of what was added there that is incorrect or biased (and therefore should be excluded). In this "reverting discussion" there need to be clear reasons given by the person reverting, addressing **specific, critically relevant points in the edits**, rather than simple, repeated reversion. Who can argue that a more full description of the spouse of a Senator is in order, than simply that she was once a cheerleader? Or that the content on the Senator's webpage changed as a result of the WP reporting? Or that the dates in the WP story are consistent with the new narrative? Do the work, or don't revert. (2) Or, alternatively, that if this reverts again without discussion, someone should elevate the matter to someone in wikipedia to adjudicate, someone with senior editorial status. This back and forth without substance is a waste of precious time. Bottom line, please don't let lazy reversions stand. Prof D Meduban (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors (so far) have rejected your proposed change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, you answer no claims, address nothing in the text, but reject carefully crafted content without discussion. Moreover, from review of history, I see evidence of your sitting on the current, content of this article, preventing any change. Hence, it appears **you** might be biased in this matter. Finally, in review of this I see you, plus one further editor (Rrius), who is neutral vis-a-vis the content, but still standing on the technical matter that the preceding article should take precedence over edits. This might be true if (i) you critically discussed edits, rather than carte blanche rejecting all, and (ii) you showed no other apparent bias. Bottom line, I see no consensus, rather I see you exerting control over the article. How can I elevate this for further review, by someone who is willing to give time to the substance of the issue? Please answer this before reverting again. Prof D Meduban (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors (so far) have rejected your proposed change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here I added a single further statement from the Wash Post website, indicating how in its WP Politics section, the WP currently refers to the immigration matter. This editing back and forth is not a power issue, but a matter of content and process. Please, Nomosked..., Rrius, take the time to read the revised article content, and decide if these additions are not substantive, clarifying, and without bias. Again, I have not been involved in this matter beforehand, and have only added the content that I found, in other documented sources (Florida newspapers and further information from the original WP article) that clarified the immigration matter matter for me, added to my understanding of the Senator's spouse. Note, again, I am an academic, an Illinoisan, and independent on these matters (though I do acknowledge owning property in the State of Florida, and so having a passing interest in its politics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Meduban, you are engaging in a slow edit war and refusing to accept that you can't use your version in the article without first obtaining a consensus. On July 14, you added this material. Nomosk reverted you. You reverted, and Rrius reverted you, also advising you that you needed a consensus for your material. You reinstated your version on July 22, and Nomosk again reverted you asking you to wait and to discuss your changes. You reverted again. You can discuss your issues at WP:NPOVN, and you can discuss them here, but you can't insist on your version in the interim. I'm reverting you, and I trust you'll respect the procedures Wikipedia follows in these kinds of content disputes and stop insisting on your version.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note, critically, in this case, I have explained in clear and unbiased terms the reasons for the corrections offered to the article (see above). Note also that the brief edits expand upon information from a source already given in the original article (the Wash Post article), and add further traceable, relvant citations. Bottom line, the edits improve the accuracy and substance of the article. (I'm a Prof, and so feel professionally capable of making this statement.) I ask acceptance that it is the person reverting that is making changes without any discussion. Why is the earlier version surpassingly sacrosanct, with reversion to it being allowed without discussion? Why is a higher standard held to for reversion, than for productive change? Bottom line, I ask either: (1) That the edits I created stand, until there is active discussion about the specifics of what was added there that is incorrect or biased (and therefore should be excluded). In this "reverting discussion" there need to be clear reasons given by the person reverting, addressing **specific, critically relevant points in the edits**, rather than simple, repeated reversion. Who can argue that a more full description of the spouse of a Senator is in order, than simply that she was once a cheerleader? Or that the content on the Senator's webpage changed as a result of the WP reporting? Or that the dates in the WP story are consistent with the new narrative? Do the work, or don't revert. (2) Or, alternatively, that if this reverts again without discussion, someone should elevate the matter to someone in wikipedia to adjudicate, someone with senior editorial status. This back and forth without substance is a waste of precious time. Bottom line, please don't let lazy reversions stand. Prof D Meduban (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR, etc.
I'm hoping that others will look closely at Meduban's edits -- there are problems with WP:OR, among other things. The section now labeled "Questioned immigration story" has editor commentary, e.g. the use of the word "notably" in the penultimate section, and the whole sentence is constructed to make a point that doesn't itself appear in the source. I don't think there's a source for "He has otherwise not altered the essence of his family's immigration story in response to the Post's..." Likewise with "While headlining the conclusion that Rubio embellished his imigration story in political presentations, the same Washington Post article included examination of the passports of Mario and Oriales Rubio, and confirmed the underlying travel contentions made by the Senator's office" -- this is all editor commentary. I've reverted, but Meduban is insisting on implementing the edit without waiting for consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is no Original Research of which I am aware. There is certainly need for further edits, but is that not the nature of the site, and this work? Hence: (1) If the "Notably" offends, edit it out. That is how we do in in the science areas. One contributor makes one change, another makes another. No one sits in lordship over the text. Moreover, the point is that the Washington Post now expresses the history of the Rubio family immigration much it was expressed at various sites, at various points, before the Wash Post challenge article appeared. Is this not germane? (2) The matter of Rubio et al.'s not altering "the essence" is contained in almost every reference dated after the Wash Post article reporting on Rubio, cited and uncited, that presents his politically driven historical narrative -- including in the final long quotation that is in the short version. Even so, I invite improvement to the sentence -- and if it just needs a reference, there are tags to request that, are there not? Point is that Rubio is not backing away from the bottom line he has long held (and that appears on the Wash Post page referred to in 1), that his family fled Castro's Cuba and communism. The date matter, and whether they left wanting to return, has not changed his description of the motive for the departure. Even so, feel free to change the sentence as you see fit. (3) It is not editorial to say that the accounts of two sources agree, The Rubio representation (one source) and the Wash Post presentation (second source) agree. Please, again, feel free to rephrase, without throwing out baby with bathwater. (4) Then, please demand the same perfection of reporting and presentation, and raise your same antennae regarding bias, **and take aim at the original short section**. I have repeatedly listed factual errors, and errors of omission that create a sense of bias here -- why list only a single avocation of the Senator's wife? Why omit the part of the Wash Post article that reported the Senator's office response? (Their offices content is not necessarily fact, but in fairness, the Wash Post reported how that office responded, and so that they responded is a reportable fact.) (5) In general, do me the same service here, that I have done you. Take my arguement seriously. I have, point-for-point, responded to your claims. Point-for-point respond to a condensed representation of mine. Please. Meduban (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note/comment: Please don't blank an entire section (personal life) just b/c you disagree with current consensus.TMCk (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That said, IMO the subsection should have a better, more neutral title that doesn't use the word "controversy".TMCk (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see wp:Controversy sections for my point made.TMCk (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- The blanking of the section was intended as a "meeting point", to address the counterclaims that the current short section and titling are seemingly biased (my view), versus that the lengthening changes I proposed create bias and not balance (apparent view of Rrius, Nomo...). Removing the one paragraph so that new, unbiased content can be hashed out here seemed a compromise, though I understand now, not one that I am entitled to enact, because of my junior status. Hence, I ask that Rrius and Nomo... delete the paragraph until it can, in fairness to these living parties, be edited to a state where there is agreement that there is no bias. I am asking this sincerely, to avoid further public dispute. In the discussion that follows, the title of the immigration subsection -- where it appears there are three contributors that have suggested downgrading it from "controversy", while Rrius and others wish this to remain -- can also be addressed, in a manner that does not marginalize any individual's view.Meduban (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Problems with Meduban's version
Meduban's persistent edit warring has gotten him blocked, but that is no reason not to respond in a detailed manner to his proposed changes. Part I—
- The first problem is that he, for reasons that are not apparent (nor likely to be rational) puts the immigration controversy before his personal life in the section called "Personal life". I think that is so obviously wrong that I needn't explain further, but I will if necessary.
- "Senator Rubio married his teenage sweetheart; Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio..." – So many mistakes in just one little clause:
- Per the Manual of Style, honorifics are left out, so "Senator Rubio" should simply be "Rubio".
- "married his teenage sweetheart" implies she was a teenager when they married, or maybe that he was. They were in fact both in their 20s.
- That same phrase is also overly familiar. Saying he married his "high school sweetheart" is borderline as to the question of encyclopedic tone.
- Again regarding that phrase, neither of the sources proffered uses it, making it a characterization we should avoid.
- The correct construction is "Rubio married Jeanette Dusdebes", not "Dusdebes-Rubio", just as "John Adams married Abigail Smith", not John Adams married Abigail Adams". That is standard usage in biographical writing.
- The semicolon doesn't belong. An appositive is set off by commas; a semicolon separates two main clauses (as seen in this sentence).
- For reasons that are never explained, Meduban wants to introduce the fact that she was briefly a bank teller. So what? the cheerleading job is noteworthy, the teller job is not.
- Meduban also wants to add that she joined with her sister. This is totally irrelevant to an article about Marco Rubio.
- So is the fact that Rubio cheered her from the stands. It's a cute story, but not worth of inclusion.
- "she had interests in fashion design before expecting their first child..."
- This is an article about him, not her.
- What does "she had interests in fashion design" mean? Well, not a whole lot in point of fact.
- "...before expecting their first child"? That's just terrible writing.
- "...as well as leading a weekly woman's bible study group from their home" – Again, this has nothing to do with the subject of this article. It is useless fluff that has no place here.
- Despite the source Meduban found, the church is Southern Baptist. Contrary to Meduban's claim that he gets his info from the church, here is what the church's site says, "We are aligned doctrinally and cooperatively in missions with the Southern Baptist Convention."[9] Southern Baptism is a decentralized denomination, so being "doctrinally aligned" is what makes a church Southern Baptist.
- Meduban also messes about with the refs. They should be attached to fact they support, but Meduban just sticks everything at the end.
I'll come back later to address the exile issue. -Rrius (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Part II: The main problem with Meduban's version of the exile issue is the level of detail. The section really only needs one additional sentence saying something like, "In response, Rubio has clarified [or some other verb] publicly[relevant ref] and on his Senate website[relevant ref] that his parents traveled between the U.S. and Cuba after emigrating, but were unable to return to Cuba after Castro's alliance with the Soviet Union." Meduban's version belabours the details of Rubio's story all out of proportion to the controversy's importance within his life's story. There are other problems. Meduban's version bends over backward trying to present exactly what Rubio's response was, introducing NPOV problems, and goes so far as to compare the pre-controversy version of the story with the amended one. That is drawing conclusions without a source, which is original research. Meduban attempts to defend his version by invoking terms like "peer review", which totally mistakes what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a research publication; rather, it is an encyclopedia. As such, it relies on verifiable claims made in reliable sources. We don't get to go off commenting on those claims. The numerous Manual of Style problems could otherwise be corrected, so I won't go beyond noting they exist. -Rrius (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius explanation, removal of original interspersed reply, and followup dialog (from Meduban talk page)
The following appeared at my talk page, and so is reproduced to clarify the changes that appear here:
- I have removed your response to my criticisms of your edits. It is wholly inappropriate to intersperse your comments within mine. It is also completely unfair to expect me to fix it, so I'm letting you know. The whole reason I numbered that list was so you could respond to each point by number. Doing what you did makes the whole thing unreadable, so if you want your responses registered, please do it without disrupting what I said. -Rrius (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- So you expect a new editor to be able to respond in your manner? There are many times where bulleted lists are crated and the response is made point by point in the list. I'll revert and reformat Medubans edits. Perhaps you can place your signature after your comments. Meduban, you should place your signature after each of your comments as well for clarity, even though you took every possible precaution to let people know it was your response. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
However, Rrius reverted Mr Vesey's changes as unacceptable. As such, before my attention this morning, my interspersed comments from the 24 July appeared, per Rrius' edit, as large blocks of text unattached to the points they were addressing (and so were largely incomprehensible). Even though, per Mr Vesey's comment, it seems I might have been justified to have used the intersperse reply format, I am not reverting to the interspersed format within Rrius' original text. I concur with Rrius that he has the right to his undisturbed, original review text -- and he has that, above. I also believe that I have the right to have my responses appear as I wish, so they are most understandable, and then to have them left undisturbed. So below, I reformat my responses so they appear as I wish, without change to the earlier text content. (Because no actual content is changed, the 24 July datestamp is maintained.) After this, I believe we each can limit our edits within talk to our own talk. Meduban (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
As to Ryan's question, of course I expect that a new editor can respond appropriately since all that requires is typing the number corresponding to mine. So if Meduban wants to respond to my point numbered 1, he types "1". It isn't hard. That stands in stark contrast to the nightmare he's now created on this page. No one can follow what he has written and no one will. He has completely vitiated any value his responses may have had. I would also point out that part of my contribution was deleted by Meduban, making any version of his solution wholly unacceptable. Meduban seems to be a senior researcher at Northwestern; how can it possibly be that he can't respond to a list of points with a list of his own? -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are incorrect in your understanding of my affiliation, though in any case, I would question whether it should be your prerogative to create searchable references to personal material on persons other than yourself. Be careful, mate. Meduban (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your own user page says, "This is a stub to start a User page for M-E Duban" and "Currently a res prof at a major university." In various contributions, you have relied upon your status as a busy academic and your scientific experience throughout this ordeal. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to see if you really were one. A Google search revealed such a person exists and a particular connection with Northwestern. It was also not unreasonable to say based on that information that you seem to be a senior researcher there. Finally, what you mean by "creat[ing] searchable references to personal material" is completely unclear. You are the one who completely blurred the line between your real life identity and WP identity, first on your user page and then on this talk page and the NPOV noticeboard. So I will not take your warning to "be careful, mate" (though I note the patronizing false familiarity) because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
- On second thought, instead of explaining to me what your inscrutable phrase means or issuing further vague threats, why don't you do something constructive? I suggest you start a new section explaining with extreme concision the changes you think need to be made to the article. Let me repeat: extreme concision. That may be the root of your problem here. WP:UNDUE is about making sure that we keep the length of our descriptions for various aspects of the subject in proportion to that aspect's importance to explaining the subject. In other words, giving as much detail about Rubio's side of the exile issue as you do actually creates a situation where this article overemphasizes the issue, violating WP:UNDUE and potentially leading to a WP:BLP problem. You've said that you overwrite and your colleagues edit you down. Well, what has happened here is that the section was already at roughly the right size, but you doubled it to add one thought, unnecessarily expanding detail about other things at the same time. I suggested an addition that would make the point you were adding to the section in a lot fewer words and without the UNDUE and potential OR, NPOV, and BLP issues. Two days or more later, you have still not responded to that. So either do that or start over with a new section at the bottom of the talk page, not justifying your edit, but explaining what you think the current article lacks. -Rrius (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Meduban response to Rrius' "Problems with Meduban's version"
The following is my response to the original Rrius review, presented as I wish it to appear (as I am told I am allowed). Meduban (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above, in "Problems with Meduban's version": Meduban's persistent edit warring has gotten him blocked, but that is no reason not to respond in a detailed manner to his proposed changes. Part I—
- Meduban replies to this preface and with general comments—
- Note, first, the edit warring in question was not "persistent", but a single instance for which I received a 24 hour ban. It had not happened prior, and has not happened since.
- Second, my extensive edit deleted essentially nothing of the original text, and only added material to a short section -- two short paragraphs, as it stood. The argument cannot be made that a prominent American politician's spouse and a putative controversy concerning his representation of his family history cannot stand further addition. That is, in my view, length added to this section cannot be seen as a real issue, certainly when viewed relative to most any other biographical article on a sitting US Senator. (In following, I will not repeatedly argue this general point.) I would also first note that such a persuasive and rigid body of argument as was offered in rebuttal to my proposed edits to this section -- in essence arguing that nothing I wrote is of merit, so that nothing need change -- should make it clear why this whole process seems to me to be guided by motivations other than wikipedia's freedom and collegial spirit (seemingly not intended to be a one-way street to maintain status quo), or the motivation that this article be accurate in content and unbiased in tone.
- Third, while I reply thoroughly, the first 28 lines (i.e., the bulk) of Rrius review focuses on 3-4 lines of text on spouse and church (in the proposed expanded version of this section). The ongoing reviewer argument that particular text elements are unnecessary needs to be understood in light of the ridiculously small amount of space the proposed additions might occupy (vs. the future possible role of the spouse in American political life, see below).
- [Explanation of and apology for numbering corruption removed because no longer relevant.] Meduban (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 1. The first problem is that he, for reasons that are not apparent (nor likely to be rational) puts the immigration controversy before his personal life in the section called "Personal life". I think that is so obviously wrong that I needn't explain further, but I will if necessary.
- Meduban replies—I have no opinion on the matter of the ordering of the paragraphs. I was simply working within a structure in place (two disparate paragraphs in a "Personal Life" section), and it made more sense that the immigration follow on the heels of the earlier political, and to end with the spouse. This conjoining of immigration and spouse portions has been subsequently changed, and it makes good sense to have done so.
- Meduban replies—I would suggest that the "nor likely to be rational" is a personal attack, is indefensible and wholly uncalled for, and I request it be retracted. Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 2. "Senator Rubio married his teenage sweetheart; Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio..." – So many mistakes in just one little clause: 2.1. Per the Manual of Style, honorifics are left out, so "Senator Rubio" should simply be "Rubio".
- Meduban replies—Fine. Not my areas of writing, so point taken. Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 2.2. "married his teenage sweetheart" implies she was a teenager when they married, or maybe that he was. They were in fact both in their 20s.
- Meduban replies—I disagree as to connotation, and use of this phrase as I have used it appears repeatedly in published literature, both about the Rubios and more broadly (see below). Intent was to clarify that he didn't meet and marry a professional football cheerleader, but that a longstanding relationship existed that culminated in marriage. Instead of simply shooting down, perhaps offer constructive change? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 2.3. That same phrase is also overly familiar. Saying he married his "high school sweetheart" is borderline as to the question of encyclopedic tone.
- Meduban replies—I disagree. This phrase appears repeatedly in biographical entries in wikipedia (search shows), and repeatedly in the journalistic treatments of the couple. Note motive for inclusion above, and suggest constructive change? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 2.4. Again regarding that phrase, neither of the sources proffered uses it, making it a characterization we should avoid.
- Meduban replies—I disagree. One can and should use new phrases, as long as the phrase is accurate as to fact. Moreover, it appears repeatedly in other Florida reporting on the couple, e.g.,
- http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/a-candid-interview-with-marco-and-jeanette-rubio/1230774 Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 2.5. The correct construction is "Rubio married Jeanette Dusdebes", not "Dusdebes-Rubio", just as "John Adams married Abigail Smith", not John Adams married Abigail Adams". That is standard usage in biographical writing.
- Meduban replies—You misquote the text I submitted, and so misstate the construction (by conjoining two phrases). In the submitted text, the hypehnated spouse name began a new sentence. (Please note semicolon-changed-to-period, and that you are editing an early, rather than the latest submitted version of the article.) Point was to give her legal name once, in the article. It is pertinent in many senses that she chose to maintain her family name via hyphenation. Suggest constructive change? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 2.6. The semicolon doesn't belong. An appositive is set off by commas; a semicolon separates two main clauses (as seen in this sentence).
Rrius, above: 3. For reasons that are never explained, Meduban wants to introduce the fact that she was briefly a bank teller. So what? the cheerleading job is noteworthy, the teller job is not.
- Meduban replies—My goodness. I am completely flabbergasted at this comment. Utterly, initially without words. Other journalists (sources) list a variety of the spouse's occupation pursuits, but we select and list one, and one that might be construed as making her appear most superficial. Why? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 4. Meduban also wants to add that she joined with her sister. This is totally irrelevant to an article about Marco Rubio.
- Meduban replies—This was contained in the source (citation), and adds flavor to the article. Two sisters joined the same organization at the same time. This is a matter of fact, and speaks to the Rubio spouse's family, and commitment to it. Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 5. So is the fact that Rubio cheered her from the stands. It's a cute story, but not worth of inclusion.
- Meduban replies—No strong opinion. Again, direct from the sourced article. Suggest constructive change? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 6. "she had interests in fashion design before expecting their first child..." 6.1. This is an article about him, not her.
- Meduban replies—This section is about her, appears to present her as superficial, and is very short as far as far as descriptions of personal information for a sitting Senator are concerned. This is particularly the case if one considers that Rubio is consistently discussed as a possible running mate for the Republican nominee (making Ms Dusdebes-Rubio a possible "Second Lady" of the US, and so of potential interest to readers). Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 6.2. What does "she had interests in fashion design" mean? Well, not a whole lot in point of fact.
- Meduban replies—Again, from the cited source, as stated by a Florida newspaper reporter in an expose on the wives of the candidates running for the Florida Senate seat. Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 6.3. "...before expecting their first child"? That's just terrible writing.
- Meduban replies—Not argued. I would note that this, the preceding, and the following reviewer comments are moving away from being collegial, toward being snide and personally insulting. Instead, suggest constructive change? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 7. "...as well as leading a weekly woman's bible study group from their home" – Again, this has nothing to do with the subject of this article. It is useless fluff that has no place here.
- Meduban replies—I disagree (as would perhaps half of the American populace). Volunteer and philanthropic activities of mothers who stay home with their children constitute a part of their work from home, and are routinely reported. Is it that it is a volunteer/philanthropic activity, or that it is a volunteer religious activity that elicits strong negative reviewer response? We should not appear to be anti-religious, even if we personally disagree with points of view of our subject. Otherwise, in re "useless...", see preceding point as to trending of reviewers tone. Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 8. Despite the source Meduban found, the church is Southern Baptist. Contrary to Meduban's claim that he gets his info from the church, here is what the church's site says, "We are aligned doctrinally and cooperatively in missions with the Southern Baptist Convention."[10] Southern Baptism is a decentralized denomination, so being "doctrinally aligned" is what makes a church Southern Baptist.
- Meduban replies—Whether this point is correct as confidently and stridently stated is a matter that would need be settled by consultation. The congregation is described in various places as "non-denomnational" (e.g., at its wiki page). It is also indicated, as the reviewer correctly notes, to be doctrinally aligned and cooperative in missions with the SBC. It may seem a nuance of American church denominational trivia that this alignment does not necessarily make this church formally an SBC congregation, per se, but it may be true. If the further work to understand the relationship is not possible, it is perhaps best to state both facts -- that it is non-denomnational, but aligned... Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: 9. Meduban also messes about with the refs. They should be attached to fact they support, but Meduban just sticks everything at the end. I'll come back later to address the exile issue. Rrius (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Meduban replies—This is a serious accusation. I attempted to leave references already in place from others in the places they appeared, adding mine most proximal to the point as possible. Once again, this review moves away from being collegial, using such loaded language as "messes about with." Can one not suggest constructive change? "Reference X needs to be moved..."? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: Part II: The main problem with Meduban's version of the exile issue is the level of detail. The section really only needs one additional sentence saying something like, "In response, Rubio has clarified [or some other verb] publicly[relevant ref] and on his Senate website[relevant ref] that his parents traveled between the U.S. and Cuba after emigrating, but were unable to return to Cuba after Castro's alliance with the Soviet Union." Meduban's version belabours the details of Rubio's story all out of proportion to the controversy's importance within his life's story.
- Meduban replies—I do not disagree. When I write with senior colleagues, I often "overwrite", so they have all information to allow them a clean and accurate edit. This generally elicits discussion among mutually respectful colleagues, en route to the final version of text. ("Oh, I didn't know that. That's a good point. How about if we say...".) My question to the reviewer (and other interested parties) is, What of the contained new submitted points are most salient to providing an unbiased perspective? Perhaps someone can offer a true, substantive redactive edit, rather than reject my submission fully? Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: There are other problems. Meduban's version bends over backward trying to present exactly what Rubio's response was, introducing NPOV problems, and goes so far as to compare the pre-controversy version of the story with the amended one. That is drawing conclusions without a source, which is original research. Meduban attempts to defend his version by invoking terms like "peer review", which totally mistakes what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a research publication; rather, it is an encyclopedia. As such, it relies on verifiable claims made in reliable sources. We don't get to go off commenting on those claims. The numerous Manual of Style problems could otherwise be corrected, so I won't go beyond noting they exist. -Rrius (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Meduban replies—I am as flabbergasted at this statement, as I am at elevating Ms Dusdebes-Rubio cheerleading over her working in a bank or looking into interior design. How is it bad to bend over backwards to represent a situation with balance? A says X, B says Y ... should be fine **especially if both are drawn from the same source.** We should not under-report the side of the Wash Post article that is exculpatory (as the short version currently does).
- Above, and here again, there seems no identification of merit, only carte blanche rejection to fully maintain a status quo. And if making serious accusations as to editorial malfeasance, why not document carefully? How is this in the service of accuracy of article content, and the collegiality of editing process?
- Note, first, the additional proposed section material is largely drawn from the Wash Post article **already cited in the standing, original short version,** where it is cited regarding the claim of misrepresented history. How is it bending over backward, and introducing NPOV issues, to (i) return to the original source, and more accurately reflect what is said **on both sides of the issue**, then to see what followup content there is after the original articles on the matter, and then to note that the Wash Post and Rubio timelines are without discrepancy? Once again, this can be edited down, but it's important to agree on the principles, and facts, so detail added makes clear the substance of the matter.
- And why, in review here, is the spouse section deserving a thorough, point by point, and even stylistic dissection, but this paragraph regarding a purported matter of misrepresented political history deserves little more than a carte blanche rejection? I have bulleted in the NPOVN area the major points, making easy their assent or rebuttal. The issue here remains that the brevity of the section creates bias in the direction of making the argument that Rubio misstated his history believable (with his quotes to close the paragraph coming off as an incomplete thought, and so lame). Please respond to the matter of the original short wiki article's incompleteness (with its omission of the fact that the Rubio web page description of the history changed as a result of the Wash Post reporting, indicating some true need for clarification in response to the Wash Post article), and the short wiki version's apparent bias on this subject (with its omission of the Washington Post information on the Senator's response to the story). As for the peer review reference: I don't recall having made it as cited, but may have, and have no strong opinion as to its relationship to the current issues.
- Finally, on this, it is a serious thing to make claims such as OR issues, even moreso NPOV issues. Where I have done so in reference to the original short section, I have bulleted the specific issues (e.g., inclusion of claim from a citation, but omission of exculpatory information from the same article). In general, my contributions have not been afforded the same respect. (Note the WP:OR, etc. entry above, from Nomo... -- first offered 8 days after the appearance of the original lengthened version of this section, and so long after the revisions were removed without comment -- was the first editorial challenge of substance to the longer content. It was also, largely, a carte blance rejection without attention to specific claims. Even so, it has already been given a response, see above.) Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, above: One more thing, Meduban's change from "Son of exiles" to a slightly awkward heading seems to be an attempt to further minimize the differences between Rubio's original story and the later one. -Rrius (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Meduban replies—Other contributors (see above talk) have indicated that the title containing "controversy" is not desirable and should be changed; hence, my change was offered in response to their comments. Why? Because the opposite contention of the reviewer may also be true, that maintaining the term "controversy" elevates the matter, and so may be the less accurate. Note, finally, the fact that the current Wash Post Politics section on Rubio states "Rubio was born in Miami to parents who fled Cuba after Communist leader Fidel Castro's takeover" appears to diminish the sense that this is a matter of controversy (Background tab, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubio-r-fla/gIQA5xxt6O_topic.html). Note, this quote and citation appeared in the latest version of my longer section -- the one last reverted by Nomo.../Rrius -- a version that appears to have been missed by this reviewer. Meduban (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius' response to Meduban interspersed version
First of all, don't intersperse your comments within someone else's. I thought numbering my points more than adequately provided you with the means to respond point by point. As for edit warring, you are wrong. You were blocked not for a single instance of edit warring, but for a persistent pattern over a number of days, starting with your persistent reverting of multiple editors who reverted you. You then edit warred over trying to remove the existing version of the disputed text. You were told repeatedly throughout the process that the status quo was entitled to remain as is until you gained consensus for change. Full stop.-Rrius (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It can be seriously argued that your expansion is unwarranted. In fact, that was the original complaint. The immigration controversy is a relatively small story, and if you were willing to actually read the Wikipedia guidelines we link to (such as WP:UNDUE), you would have learned that it is wrong to give undue weight to an aspect of the subject. More distressing, your expansion did exactly nothing to expand the explanation of what he was criticized for, instead expanding and commenting on what he has said.
- 1) Your response to my first item falls flat. You took a section called "Personal live", and made the thing you admit didn't belong there and put it first. You also say you were working with the existing structure, but you flipped the order. That is not working within the structure; it is changing it.
- 2A) Regarding "teenage sweetheart": You may have read sources that say that he married his "teenage sweetheart", but you didn't actually cite any, and you wrote it poorly. Finally, if you goal was to emphasize the length of the relationship, you could simply have added that they had known each other since their late teens. It doesn't matter if it is in news sources. Our tone has to be encyclopedic, not journalistic. Also that it is done elsewhere doesn't make it right. It is informal and doesn't belong here.
- 2B) Hyphenated name: I was not talking about the instance where her name starts a sentence. I even quoted what I was talking about so you should have been abel to see that. Here it is again, "Senator Rubio married his teenage sweetheart; Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio, from a family of Colombian descent..." That is poorly punctuated, but I suppose "Jeannette Dousdebes-Rubio" is supposed to be an appositive. Regardless, it still needs to match the sentence it is a part of. She was Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio at the time, so that is the correct way to put it. As for a "constructive change", it is obvious: change "married" to "is married to". He married Jeanette Dousdebes, but he is married to Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio. As for my using a later version, your persistent edit warring makes discovering that difficult. If the later version was something like "Rubio married his teenage sweetheart. Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio is...," then that has problems of its own, seeing as it never actually says he married Jeanette. Is it obvious? Yes. Is it still crappy writing? Absolutely.
- 3–6) If you are flabbergasted, you don't understand the point of Wikipedia. An article about Marco Rubio is meant to an encyclopedic biography of him, not a repository of everything the media has said of him, and not a "scholarly" work about it. Her various jobs, her bible study sessions, and the like are not relevant to creating an encyclopedic biography about him. This is not the features section of a newspaper, so her "interests in fashion design" and other bits of "flavor" that happen to appear in news articles don't belong. Also, the section's purpose is to give a little information about his personal life. It is not, as you claim, about her. Unless, through scandal or whatever, it becomes especially notable, his personal life is something we intentionally minimize our coverage of. As for your little remark about moving away from "collegiality", my point here is to give you what you said you wanted, a detailed accounting of what was wrong with your edit. If you can't handle hearing that parts of it were poorly written, you may want to rethink editing at Wikipedia. Criticisms of your writing are part of the process. As for a "constructive change", I already made it clear that, above and here, that I don't think it belongs at all, so the constructive change is to keep the fluff out.
- 7) It doesn't matter whether religious and philanthropic undertakings are important or reported in newspapers, though "routinely" seems like a stretch. Your allegations of being anti-religious are offensive and off the mark. A tidbit noting that Rubio's wife hosts bible study in her home is not sufficiently central to telling the story of who Rubio himself is to include it in an article about his life. It would be arguable, though only just, if it were him, but it isn't.
- 8) If you want to understand how the Southern Baptist denomination works, read about it. Because of its intensely decentralized nature, Southern Baptist congregations are often referred to as non-demoninational, even by members. That does not take away from their being Southern Baptist. What's more, reliable sources also call it Southern Baptist.
- 9) Regarding refs, it is constructive to point out that you messed them up, and I am not particularly bothered if you don't like that phrase. There is nothing uncivil about it. The fact is you created a situation where refs were not necessarily attached to the facts they were supposed to support. This again shows a level of inexperience with Wikipedia, which is fine except for the arrogant way you went about insisting that because you say you are a professor, your edits should be given special status. -Rrius (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "likely to be rational", I genuinely do not believe that you could come up with a rational argument for putting the part about his personal life after the part about the controversy in a section called "Personal life". It is not a knock on you as being an irrational purpose; rather, it points to the indefensibility of the position. -Rrius (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
My issue wasn't with overwriting as such; the problem is that what you want puts the controversy way out of proportion to its importance. We all produce flabby prose, and fixing that is just part of the process here. I already gave a version of what would suffice as an expansion of the topic. -Rrius (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You say you are flabbergasted, which must be sad for you, but you should note that you bent over backwards to give detail and OR for Rubio's side of the controversy without touching the summary of the allegation. What resulted was something that read like it was written by Rubio's office. I genuinely do not believe you intended to push his point of view, but that was the result. The reasons I didn't do a point-by-point analysis was that the problem was much more basic, and I was getting rather tired. The article needs to present this material in a way that relies on the facts, does not appear to take sides, and does not give undue weight to it. Your failure was on the second and third points. I have pointed out a way to improve the first part without jeopardizing the second and third, so I invite your comment on that. -Rrius (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, My point was not that the word "controversy" is sacrosanct. My problem was with you deleting "Sons of exile" without replacing it somewhere in the text. -Rrius (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)