Talk:Marco Rubio/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

"Crown Prince"

The introduction to the "political positions" section currently says: "According to an opinion piece by James M. Lindsay in Newsweek, Rubio was 'Once crown prince of the Tea Party' but has since become a 'hawk and favors immigration reform'.[82]" That is a lot better than citing some vague news report saying that some unidentified people have called him "crown prince" of the tea party. But still, I would delete all this "crown prince" opinion stuff. There are plenty of objective, non-sarcastic analyses of Rubio's overall political stances, including not just the ACU, but also the Almanac of American Politics and National Journal. And in any event, Lindsay says that he isn't the "crown prince" anymore, so that stuff is less significant in the preface to his political positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I would object to removing this, and I also think the addition of "opinion piece" is awkward and unnecessary, bordering on WP:WEASEL. There was a discussion about this several months ago concerning Senator Rubio being categorized as associated with the Tea Party. I will see if I can find it, because I think it would be helpful.- MrX 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a complete contortion of WP:Weasel to suggest that we should not characterize an opinion piece as such, if we are going to use it. Of course, there would be nothing wrong with this article saying that Rubio used to be more closely aligned with the Tea Party, citing reliable sources, but the idea that he is currently known by some people as the "crown prince" of the tea party violates WP:Weasel and is incorrect according to the Newsweek opinion piece.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the quote as long as we capture that he was a prominent Tea Party favorite, or something similar. That would represent the widespread view without needing attribution. Here is the previous discussion thread that I was referring to: Talk:Marco Rubio/Archive 2#Tea Party association.- MrX 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It would need attribution in a footnote at least. His more recent stances about military and immigration matters have apparently put some distance between himself and the Tea Party, which we could say as well with attribution in a footnote. In the mean time, I don't think this "crown prince" stuff is useful, and certainly should not be attributed to some people, which would be the antithesis of WP:Weasel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would we discuss on this talk page an RfC about Rick Perry? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaker term?

Wasn't Rubio Speaker of the FL House for only two years (beginning of 2007-end of 2008)? Right now the infobox for this article says "Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives - In office - September 13, 2005 – January 3, 2009". Guy1890 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This source, from The National Journal, is currently used in the body of the article to support 2005 as the starting date, but it does look like Ray Sansom assumed SotH in mid-November 2008, (source used on that article: [1]) so that should be fixed. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
this Florida Senate document says that he was not speaker during the organizational session held November 18, which combined with Erik Fresen seems like plenty of reason to make the change. I suppose he could've been provisional speaker or something, but November 18 is consistent with other articles, so that is what I put. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
From what I've read, they apparently vote on who should be Speaker of the FL House well before that designee actually takes the office of Speaker. All these quotes are from the first citation in your original above post:
  • "On September 13, 2005, Marco Rubio, then a 34-year-old state legislator from Miami, was officially designated the next speaker of the Florida House of Representatives."
  • "Rubio has been talking a lot about his leadership experiences in Tallahassee. Obama, he told Fox News in March, 'was a backbencher in the state Legislature in Illinois, and I was in leadership all nine years that I served there, including two as speaker of the House.'"
  • "It would be another three years before Rubio would officially be sworn in as speaker" (that was from around late 2003)
  • "During his two years as speaker of the Florida House"
  • "FOR EIGHT YEARS, Jeb Bush—who left office in January 2007, as Rubio was beginning his speakership" Guy1890 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
From that above pdf document, it looks like Rubio's Speaker term started on November 21, 2006 and ended around November 18, 2008. Guy1890 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Hmm... My understanding is that most office holders are dated until their successor is sworn in, unless they specifically resign or such, but I'm not certain about that. Regardless, this should be consistent with 'neighboring' article like those on Sansom and Fresen (which they were not previously). The current starting date overlaps with Allan Bense, so it should be changed. Being selected over a year before taking the position is a surprisingly long time to me, but so be it. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Destroy" the economy

Objectively, the quotes around destroy are unnecessary. This section is stating the candidate's position, not the objective truth.Seansmccullough (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Climate Skepticism

In response to reversion by User:MrX:

I take issue with the text that reads "Rubio has stated that he does not believe that human activity is causing global warming..." This quote seems to contradict the first source, which states that Rubio "won't answer [the question of whether or not man-made activities are causing the changes in the climate] with a yes or no." Your best evidence to back up your stance is the quote in the LA Times, which reads “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” Context is important here. The part that was left out in your edit summary (character limits, I know) is awfully important to understanding the message Rubio is trying to convey. The phrase "the way these scientists are portraying it" suggests that Rubio is challenging the scope or nature of the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change, and not necessarily denying it outright. He is perhaps suggesting that humans play a large role in climate change, but not as large a role as "these scientists are portraying it." In this way, I think it is misleading and factually inaccurate to suggest Rubio has stated that he thinks humans aren't responsible for climate change. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact is, that Rubio is on record as claiming that climate change is not due to human activity:

"Humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason: I believe the climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing. The question is, what percentage of that … is due to human activity? If we do the things they want us to do, cap-and-trade, you name it, how much will that change the pace of climate change versus how much will that cost to our economy? Scientists can’t tell us what impact it would have on reversing these changes, but I can tell you with certainty, it would have a devastating impact on our economy."
— Marco Rubio - Face the Nation reported by Washington Post

"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." "
— Los Angeles Times

"I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate. Our climate is always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer term trend that is directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity … I do not agree with that. I don’t know of any era in world history where the climate has been stable. Climate is always evolving and natural disasters have always existed … I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That’s what I do not, and I don’t think the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."
— Boston Globe'

His quotes and the third party analysis support the current wording. It's not even skepticism; it's denial. - MrX 13:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This question has been discussed quite a bit (see the talkpage archives). Numerous reliable third-party sources clearly state that Rubio denies any significant contribution of human activity to climate change. For example, PolitiFact found that "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." According to the Los Angeles Times, Rubio "does not believe human activity is causing climate change". And so on. Several sources note that Rubio tends to hedge or resort to vague statements on the subject (presumably because it is necessary to deny climate change absolutely in order to have a shot at the Republican nomination, but such an absolute-denialist stance needs to be walked back a bit in the general election). But I don't think there are any grounds to ignore reliable sources or to play along with that political gamesmanship. MastCell Talk 16:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
My problem is that the article in its current form suggests that Rubio has stated that humans have no impact whatsoever on climate change. None of the sources suggest Rubio has ever stated this. He has instead suggested on numerous occasions that he thinks humans do not have the type and extent of impact that scientists and others suggest, and that efforts to curb climate change will not be effective. Please show me a quote where Rubio directly states that humans do not have any impact on climate change, without some sort of qualifier such as "in the way these scientists are portraying it" Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not just include a full quote on the matter, with context, instead of trying to summarize his words in a way that inherently creates bias? Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but I'd keep the quote down to a sentence; any information after that really should be paraphrased. See suggestions in WP:QUOTEFARM. Prhartcom (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The thing about using a quote is that Rubio has given various, and sometimes conflicting, answers to questions about climate change. By picking a single quote, we would likely omit relevant aspects of other quotes. In this situation, I think it's more useful to cite reliable, third-party sources which give an overview of Rubio's responses to questions about climate change, rather than picking a specific quote. Does that make sense? MastCell Talk 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A single quote will not capture Rubio's position. A summary of the coverage of the subject by reliable sources would do a much better job, and will be compliant with NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we say: "Rubio has given various, and sometimes conflicting, answers to questions about climate change." And tag on a bunch of footnotes, with quotes in the footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not the right direction for us to take. There is very solid sourcing for the current approach to this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that language I quoted is incorrect?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm strongly opposed to language that hides the fact that Rubio is a climate change denialist. - MrX 21:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be something that I strongly oppose too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And yet your proposed sentence did exactly that. Anyway, since we agree, let's call it a day. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. If he's a climate change denialist then you can say that before the sentence I suggested, or after, or both. With proper sourcing, of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've shown several sources above, as has MastCell, to support the current wording. Could you please provide a couple of convincing sources that say that Rubio has made conflicting statements about climate change? A couple of example quotes would be helpful as well, but obviously we can't use those to form our own conclusion. - MrX 22:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad to try collecting some Rubio quotes, but have some other things to do right now. I hope to get back to your request later today or tomorrow, X. Incidentally, please note that the quote I suggested merely quotes the other editor to whom you refer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting news reports

On May 11, 2014 the LA Times published a report titled "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change". On the very same day, the Miami Herald published a report titled "No, Marco Rubio didn't quite deny climate-change. At least not yet". In a case like this, I don't think we should side with one source over the other. But we do now. This Wikipedia article says:


The cited sources are the LA Times article of May 11, plus a Miami Herald article a few days later on May 15. Similar to the May 11 Miami Herald piece, the May 15 piece says: "'I’ve never denied that there is a climate change,' Rubio said. 'The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?' Rubio, however, won’t answer that with a yes or no." So, our description does not reflect the two sources that we are citing, but rather sides with the LA Times. Moreover, I do not see where Rubio suggests no proposals could work to address climate changes, only that the proposals suggested thus far would not work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think all of this is nicely summarized as follows, in the words of PolitiFact: "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." You can find quotes where he dodges the question, or hedges, and you can find quotes where he outright denies that climate change is largely man-made. What you won't find is any instance where his position coincides with that of actual climate scientists. I'm flexible about the wording, but like MrX, I feel pretty strongly that our compact of basic honesty with the reader compels us to note the huge gulf between Rubio's position on climate change (however he chooses to phrase it on a given week) and that of the scientific community. MastCell Talk 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be much better to say he waffles, hems, and haws than to do what we presently do which is to flatly say he does not believe that human activity is causing global warming. Hopefully Skunk Works will harness nuclear fusion before the election and all of this will become moot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, hopefully. The goal here should not be to help the subject hedge his bets. I particularly object to this edit by CFredkin. This seems rather cherry picked to me. - MrX 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If reliable sources say that the subject is hedging his bets by being ambiguous, or by being a skeptic instead of a denier or believer, then we ought to say so instead of lying to readers by saying he's a denier.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Being a denier and being someone who hedges are not mutually exclusive. I don't think we are lying to our readers at all. - MrX 17:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is it fine for us to brand him as a denier when reliable sources like the Miami Herald say: "No, Marco Rubio didn't quite deny climate-change. At least not yet".?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't brand him as a denier. We should say that he has denied anthropogenic climate change. - MrX 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I have missed something, but it seems to me that "denial" is value-laden word. It was brought to this discussion (global warming/climate change) discussion from discussions about the Holocaust. It was brought to the discussion for the specific purpose to isolate and disparage people that did not believe a certain way on the topic. It has a certain connotation to it. There is no (excuse the intended pun) denying that. There are tons of the other words in the English language that do not have the extremely negative connotation that the word "denier" or "denial" have on them (once again, an outgrowth of the extremely dubious debate about the Holocaust). Just asking questions, just being skeptical of the science of global warming should not get you branded a "denier"--especially since Rubio has obviously went out of his way not to get pinned down definitively.--ML (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is advocating calling him a denier, or even using the word denial. The quote at the top of this thread is succinct, neutral and factual. Rubio has said that humans are not the cause of climate change; that actions taken today won't have an impact on climate change; that he disagrees with the scientific consensus; and that the climate is always changing. We can let readers decide whether he's a denier, skeptic, or just playing to his Tea Party base. - MrX 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
My edit is intended to better reflect the LA Times source provided (and also quoted above). The previous statement did not accurately reflect the sources. CFredkin (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of "dramatic" in that source? How is that more accurate? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." "
— Los Angeles Times


The source [2]:

  • “I’ve never denied that there is a climate change,” Rubio said. “The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?”.

My edit:

  • Rubio has stated that he has never denied that there climate change, but that he does not believe that human activity is causing these changes

CFredkin care to explain your edit summary not supported by sources provided)? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have combined the two sources above, including the "dramatic" comment as related to scientists. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think my last edit captures his stance rather well:

Rubio has stated that he has never denied that there is climate change, but questions that human activity is causing dramatic changes the way scientists are portraying them, arguing that proposals to address climate change would not work and would destroy the economy instead.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Caputo, Marc (May 15, 2014). "Marco Rubio explains his climate-change skepticism". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 18 September 2014. 'I've never denied that there is a climate change,' Rubio said. 'The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?' Rubio, however, won't answer that with a yes or no.
  2. ^ Bennett, Brian (May 11, 2014). "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change". Los Angeles Times.

- Cwobeel (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice job. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cato Institute as a source

I object to this edit which inserts content source solely to the Koch-founded Cato Institute. I would assert that the source is not independent and that the inclusion of this material violates the DUEWEIGHT clause of our neutral POV policy. - MrX 18:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I object to MrX's reversion of this edit because the Cato Institute's trade policy position is in line with the near universal opinion among economists. The Cato Institute is nonpartisan, and recently had a lengthly legal battle with the Koch brothers over the organization's independence from the Koch brothers political activity. I would assert, that despite the Cato Institute's ideology, since their trade policy view is in line with the mainstream view among economists, it constitutes a reliable source and a significant viewpoint, and therefore, does not violate our neutral POV policy. - Jajhill (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The link to our Economics article does not support your assertion. Can you show overwhelming (independent) sources that establish that Cato is widely regarded as authoritative? By the way, so that we don't have to have this discussion on every page, you way want to join the meta discussion that I started at WP:RSN#Cato Institute as a reliable source for BLPs. - MrX

Is he eligible?

Yes, his parents eventually achieved US citizenship, but he was born to illegal immigrants. He's an anchor baby. Flight Risk (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Popcorn, anyone? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Header

@SovanDara:Regarding this revert (unaccompanied by any edit summary), the header originally said "Early life, education, and political career". I changed it to "early life, education, and entry into politics". The reason I changed it is because the word "early" obviously does not apply to the word "education", and readers might therefore think the word "early" likewise does not apply to the word "political career". This section does not cover much of his political career at all, and this should be indicated in the header. So, I will revert to "early life, education, and entry into politics". This is simply a matter of clarity.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Taxes and spending

The article mentions that "Rubio supports an initiative to limit federal spending growth to the per capita inflation rate." What is a per capita inflation rate? The rate at which the population inflates? 2A01:79D:7370:99CC:8172:77E2:71EE:3437 (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've updated the article based on the source.CFredkin (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Immigration section

This is probably one of the few accomplishments of Rubio as a legislator, and deserves more coverage in the article. Please help expand. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is also discussed in the Tenure section.CFredkin (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That is not enough. A single sentence on his only legislative accomplishment is most definitively not enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Taxes and spending section

That section is unbalanced and not NPOV. His tax plans have been criticized by both the left and the right, and currently we only have content published by the Tax Foundation. If we want to include their opinion, we have to include other views as well for NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to keep the projections out entirely. The results inevitably vary widely depending on who's doing the projecting. And the section will become undue indeed if we include all the projections that have been published.CFredkin (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Cwobeel that we need more to balance this out. I disagree with CFredkin that we should exclude projections entirely. Even if we were to include all available projections would not overwhelm the article in any way, namely because only a small number of think tanks/institutes release such projections. (I can think of just three off the top of my head: the Tax Foundation (center-right), the Tax Policy Center (centrist), and Citizens for Tax Justice (center-left) + CBO if a plan has been scored, but most haven't). In any case, if we are going to recite a candidate's tax plan, we would be remiss to not include, in brief, what the expected outcome would be... Neutralitytalk 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. Then as a minimum bar for notability, I think we should include content cited by reliable secondary sources.CFredkin (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If we describe Rubio's tax plan at all, then it is obviously notable and relevant to include its projected impact according to reputable sources. Right now, the Tax Foundation (generally viewed as right-leaning) is the only such group to have produced a detailed analysis, as far as I'm aware, and I've restored it with attribution. The Tax Foundation analysis has been cited by numerous secondary sources; I included one, to satisfy CFredkin's concern. If some of the other groups listed by User:Neutrality above produce analyses of Rubio's tax plan, then they can be added as well, to give a more balanced overview. MastCell Talk 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Kurtz

I object to this edit that removed the analysis by media critic Howard Kurtz. This eliminates a key perspective, namely the perspective that this is a tempest in a teapot. By eliminating that perspective, and expanding details of the matter ad nauseum we create the impression that this was a major scandal involving misconduct by Rubio. Please adhere to WP:NPOV, User:Neutrality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The quote is to balance out the description from the Politico headline as a "House of Horrors," right? If we eliminate the in-text reference to a "House of Horrors," would you be OK with eliminating Kurtz?
Frankly, I think we can safely eliminate both the "House of Horrors" descriptor and the the Kurtz quote. Neutralitytalk 03:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You are not addressing the issue. After the "House of Horrors" descriptor is removed, that still leaves a massive set of detail that you have inserted and the massive insinuation that Rubio was involved in some kind of scandal or misconduct. Kurtz represents a different point of view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of friendly editing, I've added back the Kurtz quote, plus an additional quote (also favorable to Rubio), pending discussion: [3].
Also: I am not sure what "massive insinuation" you refer to. If anything, the current language is more favorable to Rubio than before (in large part because I got rid of unsourced material that was there before, such as the bit about him being "questioned" as part of the federal investigation, which was not supported by the sources).
I'm willing to discuss, but I would like you to be specific about what changes you want to see. Neutralitytalk 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Adds/edits

FYI - I've been adding/expanding this page (there are some sourcing issues that I've been trying to rectify, plus garden-variety expansion). I understand (obviously) that politicians' pages can get contentious, although I think 90% of what I've added should be unobjectionable to anyone. I am happy to engage here on any points. Neutralitytalk 03:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are making huge changes without any prior discussion. It's fine being bold, but one runs the risk of being reverted that way, especially when many of your edits have removed or altered longstanding material in this BLP. I disagree with some of your edits, and agree with others. Just focusing on Kurtz, we have yet to make any progress. I'm calling it a night. Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am being bold, as is encouraged. If anyone objects, they are free to take issue, and then I'll discuss. But most of these "huge changes" are (1) garden-variety expansion and (2) removal of weakly-sourced material and addition of stronger-sourced material (removing low-quality sources and replacing them with better ones). I anticipate about 95%+ of my changes are uncontroversial. The remaining 5% can be worked out here.
If you have specific issues, let me know and we'll talk it out. Neutralitytalk 03:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of garden variety edits

I recently edited this article to incorporate an article in the National Journal about Rubio's career in Florida state politics.[4] Cwobeel has undone some of those edits on what seem to me very unpersuasive grounds....

Age

Let's considered his first objection. His edit summary says: "rm editorializing. This is not People's magazine". And here is his edit: "Barely out of law school and 26 years old, Rubio was elected to a seat as City Commissioner for West Miami in 1998, before moving on to the Florida House of Representatives in early 2000." Nothing could be more typical in a biographical article than to describe the age of the subject at various events in his life. The cited source says: "Barely out of law school, the 26-year-old was seeking a seat on the city commission." Please focus on major disagreements, and let's cut each other some slack. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Barely out of law school and 26 years old, is editorializing. This is not an oped in a magazine. If you want to indicate that aspect without editorializing, use dates or number of years, such as "6 months after graduating" if it was six months, for example. Also, please avoid copyvios. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Your idea of editorializing seems incredibly broad when it comes to GOP candidates. I note that you haven't suggested what the editorial message was; perhaps "Rubio was an incredible political prodigy" or "Those moronic voters in Florida would vote for an infant". I have no idea what you think the editorial message was, but I can only assume you think it was a pro-Rubio message since that's what you usually say. I intend to change the language to "Recently graduated from law school and 26 years old...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
What was the time that elapsed between his graduation and his election to the city commissioner? Don't you think it would be more useful for our readers to know that than using editorial devices such as "barely out of law school" or "recently graduated". Stick to facts and avoid rhetorical devices better suited to op eds. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
These are the facts: law degree in 1996, seat as City Commissioner in 1998. Stick to facts, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't say which month, which kind of puzzles me since you seem to be insisting on great factual precision. Anyway, I have no problem whatsoever with saying "Two years out of law school and 26 years old....". I don't understand why you couldn't write that instead of simply deleting the whole statement. Not only does deleting conflict with WP:Preserve, but it is also virtually guaranteed to get on the nerves of other editors like me, because it implies that you find the deleted words completely unacceptable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
If that innocuous edit gets in your nerves, maybe take a break? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You go first.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Employer

Next we have this edit by Cwobeel: “Later, in 2004, he switched private sector jobs, moving to Broad and Cassel which is one of Florida’s leading law and lobbying firms, though state law prevented him from engaging in lobbying or introducing legislation on behalf of clients.” Now the sentence gives no clue whether his employer was a brothel or an underwater salvage firm. The cited source says, “In June 2004, Broad and Cassel, one of Florida’s top law and lobbying firms, hired him….” Yes, Cwobeel added a wikilink to Broad and Cassel, but we are not supposed to make readers chase links. Do I have to quote the policy? Why can’t we say that the entity that hired him is a law and lobbying firm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"One of Florida’s top law and lobbying firms" is an unattributed opinion. Best to avoid these, and allow readers to visit the article and found out more if they want. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." The same principle applies here, and I intend to briefly describe his employer as what it was: a law and lobbying firm. I also don't think that this info is opinion. We need to steer clear of opinion as much as possible so we don't waste readers' time with stuff that is often wrong. I'm out and about right now, but hope to have further replies later. Cheer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
That is not a "highly technical term". You may use "Broad and Cassel, a Florida lobbying firm" if you want, and omit any superlatives or opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I will say "law and lobbying firm" which is the factual language that offended you to such an extent that you entirely struck it out of the Wikipedia article without even making any effort to rephrase or comply with WP:Preserve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Easy, man. It is you that made the edit, not me. Take responsibility, fix it and move on. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
There were two edits: me writing, and then you deleting. I take full reponsibility for the former.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
And I for the latter. That is the way of the land. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Triviality of his presidential candidacy

Here is another of Cwobeel’s edits, where Rubio’s presidential candidacy is removed from the lead paragraph. This is contrary to current common practice (see Hillary Clinton, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, et cetera, et cetera). Putting this in the lead paragraph is also required by WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, which says we should include “The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played”. And so the implication is now that Rubio’s presidential candidate is so trivial and insignificant as to be non-notable in the lead paragraph. Readers will interpret this as an insult by Wikipedia against Rubio,and quite reasonably so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with trivializing anything; please AGF. The article's lede needs to respect chronology and not be slanted towards recent events. Most candidates articles include the statement about their candidacy at the end of the lede. See Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, George Pataki and others. Eight months for now, when many of these drop from the race, you would not have the mention of their candidacy in the lead sentence, would you? (See Rick Perry and Scott Walker as an example). See WP:RECENTISM. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Before I answer your questions, Please help me understand why is that you consider your 50 or so consecutive edits in which you made substantial changes to be reasonable, while my three edits are not. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This whole section is directed to helping you understand that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
So you make 50+ edits and get so mad about a few corrections to make this entire thread. Oh boy. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, if I agree with everything you say, then you will apparently like me better, but I don't care if you like me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a hoot about liking you or not. We are here to write an encyclopedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
We are indeed, so let's not focus on how mad we are at each other.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment in support of Anythingyouwant's observations here

Strongly agree with Anythingyouwant's observations and points here, and it would appear that it might be advisable for Cwobeel to take a brief respite from editing Wikipedia political articles. Cwobeel generally seems to contribute only minimal substantive material, mostly making very numerous edits that are reversions of others' good faith efforts and contributions, or to sanitize articles with what appears an obvious and noticeable bias, and frequently with what most would consider 'snarky' edit summaries (and not infrequently reverting Cwobeel's own edits, curiously enough --- I guess haste makes waste.) Cwobeel might also do well to revisit Wikipedia:NPOV policies, and study them again very carefully, as many of Cwobeel's edits and undo's look very much like, to even the most casual observer, heavily biased in favor of one particular candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Even a cursory review of Cwobeel's contributions history bears that out. ( @Anythingyouwant:cc ) --- Professor JR (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I make substantial contributions to many articles, check my userpage. This is Wikipedia, and we arrive at compromises by collaboratively editing articles. If you don't like that there is always Conservapedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you would be very surprised if you knew who is my favorite candidate. But in any case, we all have our biases and I could say the same about you. It is all OK, though. That is the Wikipedia way. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Professor JR: that's a meritless, totally unfounded attack on Cwobeel, who is very good content contributor to this project. Neutralitytalk 22:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unattributted opinion

@Anythingyouwant: What you are doing here again, is taking Michael Mishak's opinions and stating them as a facts. Not acceptable. All these are unattributed opinion stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I had tagged these with {{whom}}, but Professor JR has decided to revert these tags, for whatever reason and without addressing the issue.

  • That position had typically required a lot of arm-twisting, but Rubio took a different approach that relied more on persuading legislators and less on coercing them.

    .

  • Rubio also gained an extra advantage in that regard, because he was sworn in early due to the special election, and he would take advantage of these opportunities to join the GOP leadership.

    .

  • Yet, Rubio's style was very different from Bush's. Where Bush was a very assertive manager of affairs in Tallahassee, Rubio's style was to delegate certain powers, relinquish others, and invite former political rivals into his inner circle.

    .

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the last example, your edit is a paraphrase of an opinion in Mishak's article, which says Jeb Bush—who left of­fice in Janu­ary 2007, as Ru­bio was be­gin­ning his speak­er­ship—had taken a dom­in­eer­ing ap­proach to man­aging af­fairs in Tal­l­a­hassee. Ru­bio’s style of lead­ing turned out to be quite dif­fer­ent. In a sur­pris­ing de­par­ture from House pro­tocol, he gran­ted re­quests by Gel­ber (the Demo­crat­ic lead­er) to make his own ap­point­ments to com­mit­tees as well as to con­trol his caucus’s of­fices and park­ing spaces—the cudgels of le­gis­lat­ive power. Paraphrasing is a great device instead of using quotes, but when you paraphrase an opinion, you still have to attribute the opinion. Otherwise it reads as this was a fact, and in Wikipedia's voice to boot. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel says that the three quoted statements in the Wikipedia article are unattributed opinion stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. But Cwobeel, in all three of those instances you have conveniently omitted footnote "16" which should appear at the end of every one of those three excerpts. Footnote 16 is designated as a news report, not an opinion piece, and the news report is amply supported by many examples that the reporter offers to prove each one of those three statements. Here is a helpful video that offers an explanation of how facts differ from opinions, the main difference being that opinion is not proven. Therefore, if you would like to argue that this news report fails to prove any of the three statements above, then you might have a point, but you haven’t even tried to do that with regard to the first two examples you gave. With regard to the last example you gave, my edit is not merely a paraphrase of the material you suggest. It is also supported by a great deal of other material in the cited source; would you like me to quote it all here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The text in its current state it is not acceptable. You are using the opinions of Michael Mishak without even a single attribution and in Wikipedia's voice. Please take a minute to review WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Please also note that your text as presented above fails WP:BLP, which advises us write conservatively and dispassionately. The material as written may be great for an op ed or a blog post, but not for an encyclopedic article about Rubio. Stick to the facts, and if you use opinions, then attribute them. It is not that difficult, really. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay Cwobeel, I'm glad to pursue this conversation as long and as thoroughly as you would like. Why don't you pick one of the three statements that you think is the most obviously opinion, and then I will try to prove to you that the statement is amply proven by facts described in the news report, okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN is on you, not me, as you are the one that wants to keep the material. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and I have to start somewhere, and would like to start with the stuff that you think is most egregious. So please say 1, 2, or 3.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't really mind in which order. Just take care of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I mind which order, and the order I prefer is the one that starts with your biggest objection. You're saying you don't have any biggest objection?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright, since there's been no response here, I have attached extensive notes to each of those three statements. I don't think those three notes are very necessary, since anyone could simply read the news report in National Journal to confirm these three items. But the notes clearly show that these are factual matters, uncontradicted by the interviews and historical analysis performed by this journalist for National Journal. Moreover, these three items in the text of this article do not seem particuarly controversial or jarring in any way, and that's another reason why I think the notes are not very necessary. But there they are for the skeptic who wants to read them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That does not address the concerns expressed. Adding notes solves nothing, as these remain in the text as unattributed opinions stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not at all surprised by this response of yours Cwobeel, but the statements are run-of-the-mill factual information that is contradicted by no one and fully proved in the news report. See also this. Before you go slapping more templates on the article, how about if we see what other editors think?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, anyone reading these three paragraphs can see that these are assessments or opinions and not facts. I fail to understand how you think otherwise.- Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not think otherwise. They are journalistic assessments of facts. According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution, "in-text attribution can mislead". For example, if we wrote "According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening" then that would be highly misleading. The same is true here. Moreover, per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution, "It is best not to clutter articles with information best left to the references." As far as I know, none of the material that you are objecting to here has been contradicted by anyone, and it has been proved in great detail by a reliable news source. Just like your deletions of Rubio's age, and of the type of employer he had, I think this discussion now is very unnecessary, and distracts us from addressing more important issues, such as earmarks and the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Spare me the patronizing. Don't you see the difference between a fact/assertion such as "the sun will set in the west this evening", with an opinion/assessment such as " Rubio took a different approach that relied more on persuading legislators and less on coercing them"? Really? I beg to differ, as it is perfectly obvious that the latter is an opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
It is obvious that the sun will set in the west, but I do not believe that every less-obvious fact warrants inline attribution. Moreover, the statement that the sun sets in the west is basically fortune-telling, since no one knows with absolute 100% certainty what will happen in the future, and moreover it is blatantly incorrect with respect to sunsets that occur on other planets.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Gross bias and distortion in this article regarding salaries of previous speakers

A cited Washington Post article says this:[5]

In other words, Rubio's salary multiplied more, because he started off with less. I clarified this point in the Wikipedia articicle here. But User:Cwobeel rejects this correction, and specifically tries to distort the Wikipedia article.[6] I emphatically object to such blatant distortion of a reliable news source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Easily fixed. You could have done it yourself. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I did fix it, and you specifically reverted as indicated in the diff I already gave just now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems my edit was not saved. But another editor has taken care of it already. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

During his time as Speaker of the Florida House, Rubio shared a residence with another Florida State Representative, David Rivera, which the two men co-owned in Tallahassee. The house later fell into foreclosure. This issue was raised in June 2010, during Rubio's run for the US Senate, but was considered resolved according to Rubio's spokesman

Doh. Of course his spokesman will consider that resolved, but omitting the commentary about that issue as reported in reliable sources is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm ok with removing the last sentence above and just including the bit about it later being sold.CFredkin (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
That is not enough... The sentence does not give any context on why this is relevant to his bio, without the deleted material. This was the original:

During his time as speaker of the Florida House, Rubio co-owned and shared a Tallahassee home with David Rivera, a fellow Republican Florida state representative and "old friend" of Rubio's.[42] (Rivera and Rubio, both "rising stars" in Tallahassee at the time, later briefly lived together in a rented home in Washington after they won seats in Congress.)[42] The home was purchased in March 2005 for $135,000; in 2010, during Rubio's run for the U.S. Senate, the property fell into foreclosure after five months of missed mortgage payments.[42][43] In June 2015, the troubled home was finally sold for $117,000, $8,000 less than the asking price and $18,000 less than the two men paid for ten years previously.[44][45]

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There's now a POV tag atop the section on his tenure as state legislator. Could we please have a brief explanation here at the talk page precisely why the tag is there? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
See section above. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The so-called "original" version re. the foreclosed house is kind of weird, because the quoted material is not really "original" (e.g. it omits the Kurtz quote that was there for many days, while including new material that IMO gives the matter undue weight).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Cwobeel, above. The "considered it resolved" section is absurd. It manages, ridiculously, to be both obvious and vague. The improved version is far better, as I explain in the section above. Neutralitytalk 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel,User:Anythingyouwant: Would you be comfortable with the following language based on existing sources?


OK, but it needs the addition of the undisputed fact that foreclosure happened after five months of missed mortgage payments. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with that.CFredkin (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Great. Go ahead, then. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Salary

Apparently, Rubio made about $300,000 per year in the private sector law firm while speaker, in addition to $29,000 as his salary for being a legislator. I'm not aware that these numbers were unusual. My question is, how do other comparable BLPs handle this? Do we provide such salary info for other political figures or candidates?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course we do. See for example Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush and others. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
How about Democrats? Do we say how much Hillary Clinton made as Secretary of State, or how much Bernie Sanders makes as a U.S. Senator?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The relevant information is the outside employment/income in addition to the government salary. We do mention that for figures of both parties, whenever the sources mention it. See, e.g., Wendy Davis (politician) ("Wendy was paid an annual salary of $40,000 by her husband Jeff Davis, who told Robert Draper of the New York Times Magazine that he paid her the salary for her work for the city of Fort Worth as a council member, a job that paid little."); Vivian E. Cook ("The New York Daily News reported that Cook was among the Assembly members that refused to disclose her outside income"). Neutralitytalk 20:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Long quote from Club for Growth president

Re this long quote from the president of the Club for Growth: I'm fine with retaining the Club for Growth's numeric rating of Rubio, but a long, flattering quote is out of place here, and I've removed it. (The numeric rating is also already in the article, under the "taxes and spending" section; Prof JR added it to the "political positions" intro session; I assume this redundancy was accidental and have taken it out).

The highly vague and loaded language ("pro-growth"; "entitlement state"; "common sense regulatory reforms") give almost no relevant information to the reader. It's not encyclopedic, nor is the quote from one advocacy group balanced out by another perspective (I'm sure you could easily get a quote from an AFL-CIO leader trashing it, but we don't have that). Neutralitytalk 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The quote is promotional and WP:UNDUE. It should remain out of the article until there is consensus for including it.- MrX 13:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR, you added the same long Club for Growth quote back into the article today - without discussing it here. What gives? If we're going to have this quote in here (which I think is promotional), then we need something to balance it out. I have added in a quote from a Jared Bernstein clip. I would be fine either with including both quotes (or similar ones), or excluding both quotes. But it would not be fair for us to have just the Club for Growth quote, standing alone. On a more minor note, I have also attributed the Club for Growth quote to the actual author of the USA Today op-ed, David M. McIntosh. He is the president of the Club, and is notable in his own right (no pun intended), so I feel it would be best for us to attribute his opinions to him, and not just the Club. Neutralitytalk 02:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of material

Eeyoresdream is deleting a substantial amount of content without any discussions. I have restored a few of these deletions, as these are properly sourced and required for NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Objections have been raised about the reliability of the source used for the claims regarding Rubio's involvement with spending and regarding the undue nature of the content regarding Rubio's use of a GOP credit card. I agree that that's an excessive amount of content for an issue that was investigated and resolved without blame assigned.CFredkin (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Many issues in a politician's live are resolved "without blame assigned", and yet these are relevant issues in a bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure. But whether this issue should be mentioned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is how much content should be included on that subject. The argument is that, based on how the issue was resolved, the amount of content you're adding is excessive.CFredkin (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Excessive? See for example Tony_Rezko#Real_estate_dealings. And Rezko is not running for president. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Great analogy. But I think the more important question is how much of the Rezko material appears in Obama's bio? The answer is one sentence: "The purchase of an adjacent lot—and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer, campaign donor and friend Tony Rezko—attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama."CFredkin (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC) There's no discussion about the fact that Obama was able to buy the lot for a below-market price, etc.CFredkin (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
???? How is that relevant? The house mortgage issue or the credit card issue in his article can't be presented in any other article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your point...CFredkin (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
My point is that if the Rezko land deal only merits one sentence in Obama's bio (and doesn't even mention the salient issue of the purchase price of the land), how do you justify including 8 sentences on Rubio's credit card situation (when there's currently 3)?CFredkin (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Section tagged as not NPOV. The material is not UNDUE, for a politician running for President. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This talk page section does not identify any particular material. Which material is of most concern? The credit card stuff?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald analysis
  2. The credit cards issue
  3. The foreclosure of the house in Tallahassee due to missed mortgage payments
  4. The eminent domain legislation paragraphs
This is the diff [7] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR POV tags are there for a reason. Please join in the discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel. I would add that the wholesale deletions here totally lack any legitimate policy-based reasons. I'll take the paragraphs in order.
  1. - This is based on a Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald budget analysis from 2000 to 2008 (Rubio's years in the Legislature). It is highly relevant to understanding a long stretch of his political career. The supposed objection to the "source" of the material is frivolous. Nevertheless, as a compromise, I propose: restoring the material, with an additional mention that the source of the documents was the Florida Office of Policy and Budget.
  2. - The credit card material - a big improvement over the very weak, and in some cases inaccurate, summary before. The weak earlier version is terrible includes "questioned" is terrible because there was no evidence that Rubio was questioned. The older version also gives no sense at all of timeline (i.e., when Rubio had the card). It also relies entirely on 2010 and 2012 articles, while the improved version relies on high-quality articles that are more recent (2015). The old version refers generically to a "Republican Party" card, while the new version specifies that it is a Republican Party of Florida card. Most disturbingly, the old version omits the fact Rubio was cleared, but was faulted by an investigator for a level of negligence. In sum, the new version was far superior, and explains - more precisely and using high-quality sources - a major event in Rubio's political life.
  3. - The foreclosure material, likewise, was perfectly fine, and a huge improvement over the frankly bad summary given before. The truncated version is devoid of all context whatsoever. It does not explain that Rubio and Riviera were friends. It totally lacks any sense of timeline (such as when they bought the house and when the missed payments). The improved version adds this context and perspective on an important incident that got substantial coverage in 2010 through the present. It complete, if brief, explanation of what happened. No editor has put forth any explanation of why such material is "undue" or improper. Only ipse dixit assertions have been made. Simply not acceptable. The objectors need to explain what specific details they would omit, and why.
  4. - The eminent domain paragraphs - unquestionably, my edits to this were a significant improvement. No editor has ever explained the basis for their objections, and I can't think of a single one. The truncated version was inaccurate: it called the committee a "special committee" when it fact it was a select committee. The truncated version omitted the date (2005), the name of the person who appointed Rubio (Allan Bense), the official name of the committee. The new version adds all these details, while adding high-quality sources. (The truncated version also cited only to the National Review). The reflexive reversion back is totally unjustifiable. It boggles the mind, and I am pretty sure any fair-minded, third-party editor would agree.
In sum, these wholesale deletions lack any real basis. If people want to talk about specific points of disagreement, then that's great. But vague assertions are not. Neutralitytalk 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. The article referenced is based entirely on documents from Crist's office which were released after they were campaigning against each other. That's not a reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. The edits in question were outrageously excessive and undue. As mentioned above, for comparison, the Rezko land deal gets one sentence in Obama's bio (and doesn't even mention the purchase price of the land, which was the reason it got attention). The issue doesn't need 8 sentences when it currently has 3 already.CFredkin (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Also ridiculously excessive and undue. The comments about Rubio and Rivera both being rising stars and living together previously, the original purchase price of the house, and the commentary from Kurtz and regarding other families is completely superfluous.
  4. I'm less certain about why these edits were reverted. The edit comment referenced tightening of the text....CFredkin (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality and/or Cwobeel, are these four items ordered according to how big of a problem you see? If not, could you please say which of the four you consider to be the biggest problem? I would like to focus on the biggest issue first, get it resolved, and then move on to the next one. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, speaking for myself, I think the omission of the Herald/Times reporting (#1) on 2007-08 budget issues is outrageous. I also think it can be easily resolved if we all agreed to just add a few words noting that the budget info came from a state office. I also think it is misleading in the extreme to note that Rubio was cleared in the credit card ethics commission complaint without also noting the ethics commission advocate's determination that there was negligence (widely reported by CNN, Tampa Bay Times, and even Bill O'Reilly (!)). When we fail to mention that, it seems like we are soft-peddling.
I consider #4 the least important, but the easiest to resolve. In the interests of narrowing the range of items under discussion, do you object to restoring those changes? Neutralitytalk 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I will reciprocate soon, but want to just finish up with some edits incorporating info from the National Journal article by Mishak.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, #1 is ultimately sourced to an unofficial list created by the office of Rubio's political enemy (Crist) which apparently wasn't even mentioned by Crist's office until they started campaigning against each other. In addition, the source says the list linked spending items with lawmakers based on conversations Crist's staff had with legislative staffers and lawmakers. (You've got to be kidding me!) It's an xls file, which doesn't appear to even have been made publicly available. Also, it's contradicted by the official CIBR process which was referenced immediately before this in this article (and still exists in the article). Florida TaxWatch releases the official "turkey list" for spending in Florida. Rubio's spokesperson claimed that Crist's list was not supported by Florida TaxWatch. Finally, I can't find any other sources that reference this information. It's not reliable. On the other hand, personally I don't have a problem with restoring #4.CFredkin (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
As to #1, before responding, I'm curious whether User:Neutrality finds this explanation by User:CFredkin persuasive or not. In other words, if I can wiggle out of investigating this matter and forming an opinion about it. that's my preference.  :-) As to #1 though #4, I'm curious whether User:Cwobeel ranks them the same way User:Neutrality does.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I find it a completely unpersuasive argument. The documents were kept year to year, by a budget office from 2000-08. The office appears to be part of the executive branch (much like the OMB is on the federal level), but the idea that Crist himself simply made up the numbers in 2010 is simply absurd. Bottom line: the Times/Herald found them enough to report on. The two newspapers are unquestionably reliable sources. The source deals with an important event in Rubio's political career. We have zero business not including it.
To the extent that the fact that this came from a budget office is significant, I would be fine with saying that this came "from the Crist administration's budget office." I think it's unnecessary to say, but I am offering it as a compromise so we can all move forward.
I'd also note that much or all of the content is repeated in other independent sources (which I didn't, but I could've put in). For example, the Turnpike thing is also supported in another Tampa Bay Times article. Neutralitytalk 05:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
To be clear....The source provided is an article written by a reporter who appears to be associated with the Miami Herald. However, the article itself was published by the Tampa Bay Times. I've seen no evidence that an article was also published by the Miami Herald. Also, the blog post cited in the last post (and the lengthier article it links to) talks about Rubio pushing for language to allow split bidding for the contract for the project, which would potentially have allowed a firm run by a friend to bid for it. It says nothing regarding Rubio being involved with obtaining funding for the project itself.CFredkin (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't agree that an xls file created by a budget office for what appears to be its internal use, and which they did not publish publicly is necessarily reliable.CFredkin (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Finally it would be great if you addressed the specific points I raised above regarding how the file was created and the fact that it was contradicted by other sources, instead of making unfounded claims. I never stated that the numbers were made up by Crist himself.CFredkin (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
First - "The Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald merged Tallahassee bureaus in 2008, creating a six-person team where assignments are divided evenly and each newspaper publishes work of the combined staff." See here. So this was published in both newspapers and is properly credited to both (the ideal cite is probably: "Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald Tallahassee Bureau").
Second - No, the report is not "contradicted by other sources." The state budget office and Florida TaxWatch have different lists, presumably because they have different criteria. It seems that the budget office's list was of all hometown projects, while the TaxWatch list is more narrow and lists projects they view as unwise ("turkeys"). That's not a contradiction, merely a different document. (You wrote above that "the official 'turkey list'" is maintained by TaxWatch - Not so. TaxWatch maintains a list, but it is not an "official list"; the group is an advocacy group, not a government agency).
If you think the source has limitations, fine - as I've said, we can express the limitations stated in the source itself (i.e., that the list is generated from the budget office). But to say, "we, as Wikipedia, don't think this source is reliable, notwithstanding the fact that two respected newspapers relied upon it for a news analysis," - I don't think that is a fair way to look at it.
(By the way, even if we were to play the role of newspaper editor in assessing reliability (which we should not): the fact that a document is internal would seem to enhance its reliability, no? If these documents were internal, then that implies that they were not cooked up for external election-season consumption down the line.) Neutralitytalk 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop saying that this content was published by 2 newspapers until you provide 2 links to articles supporting that statement. The 2 newspapers may share staff in some cases, but only 1 newspaper appears to have published this article.CFredkin (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Our role as encyclopedia editors absolutely includes assessing the reliability of sources. And this is a WP:BLP, which means we need to hold the sourcing for content to the highest standards.CFredkin (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The following factors argue strongly against the reliability of the source in this case:
  1. The source for this "unofficial" list is informal discussions between budget staff and legislative staff and legislators.
  2. This unofficial list is contradicted by the official list of budget requests (CIBR's).
  3. The unofficial list has never been published externally, but appears only to have even been mentioned and shown to a reporter offline during a campaign between Crist and Rubio. It implies that the staff are unwilling to stand behind it and have it be scrutinized. That doesn't enhance the reliability of the list. It detracts from it.
  4. The unofficial list is called an "unofficial" list in the article. Why would we publish information from an "unofficial" list in a BLP?CFredkin (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
First: Both the Herald and the Times both published the identical piece (as literally 30 seconds of research would reveal).
Second: There is no question whatsoever that the Herald and the Times are respected sources. All arguments to the contrary are strained at best. Also, reporters routinely report on non-public documents, including government documents, drafts, etc. and use information from confidential sources. That is absolutely typical, as a quick glance at any given day's Washington Post would reveal. Your approach seems would seemingly presume that reporters are credulous and don't do fact-checking. That is, happily, not the case. The whole point of journalism is that professional editors act as a filter.
If you want to submit to the reliable sources noticeboard, go ahead. Neutralitytalk 07:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutely right... in fact we should just rely on bots to create and update Wikipedia articles based on published newspaper content. No judgement required.CFredkin (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The snide remark doesn't impress me. Nor does it further the conversation. I am done for the evening. Good night. --Neutralitytalk 08:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Whereas your snide remarks above have really elevated the tone of the discussion....CFredkin (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Life is too short for this. Let us find some actual way to break this impasse. Neutralitytalk 23:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. In the spirit of getting past this issue, I'd like to propose the following text:

A Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald analysis of a budget list maintained by Crist's Office of Policy & Budget from 2000 to 2008 indicated that Rubio helped push about $250 million in hometown spending for projects, some of which was co-sponsored with other representatives. The list was compiled by the governor's staff during the budget process based on conversations with legislators and their staffs and was not published publicly.CFredkin (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a start, but does not include some necessary information. I've posted my alternate proposal below. Neutralitytalk 06:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My first impression is that the Times/Herald piece falls under the heading of "reliable source" and so their statements of fact are entitled to our respect. But I also think we ought to take into account other sources on the same subject, such as this one in the Orlando Sentinel, and perhaps others. I want to make sure we're not talking about a situation like "Rubio voted to fund highways that he himself has driven on". We need to be clear about why this was or was not such a situation. Here's a quote from the Sentinel piece: "'I didn't push any of them,' Rubio said Tuesday, when told of Miami-Dade's lengthy list. 'I quite frankly am not familiar with most of them.' He also noted that many of the earmarks criticized by TaxWatch are for health and social programs, or as Rubio put it, 'the kind of thing that legislators would get attacked on if we didn't fund them.'" Do any of these reports contradict what Rubio was saying here? It's not clear to me. I want to work on this some more later today, so we get it right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would be more comfortable using content based on information published publicly with stated critera by an independent organization, which I think would include TaxWatch. However, my concern about the Orlando Sentinel article (& TaxWatch in general) is that, after looking at it more closely, TaxWatch doesn't actually link spending to legislators. It only links spending to counties that benefit from it. So we can use it to determine whether Rubio's county received funding, but not whether he was involved in securing the funding.CFredkin (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC) I believe this is indicated in the Orlando Sentinel article itself, as well as by documents published by TaxWatch.
Anythingyouwant: I would be OK with including the Times/Herald piece alongside the Orlando Sentinel (alongwide any limitations of the sources, as noted in the sources themselves). I generally think statistical/budget info that relies on government sources is preferable to reliance on third-party activist groups (such as TaxWatch), but I would not object to inclusion of both, if it would break the impasse. The whole thing, I think, can likely be dealt with in a few sentences. Do you have proposed language? Neutralitytalk 23:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have proposed language quite yet,but I note that earmarks are currently covered as follows in the Wikipedia article:

So it looks like this is the material that we are trying to improve. I am fine with citing both of the newspaper articles in question, so that readers can easily get further info, but I'm unsure what material from those articles should be added to the current material, and what parts of the current material are unnecessary. I see that CFredkin has proposed the following language:

I have several problems with this. First, do we have any analysis available to us about which parts of the $250 million were bs, versus which parts were legitimate health and social programs? Also, the word "hometown" that CFredkin uses is rather vague. Does it refer just to West Miami where Rubio lived, or did it also include the hometowns of the co-sponsoring legislators? Or was the word "hometown" used loosely to encompass Rubio's entire county (Miami-Dade)? And was there some "homteown spending" that the reporters did not classify as a "turkey"? The whole matter is kind of puzzling to me, and I think we may need more sources to sort it out here at the talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Arbitrary break

Disputed Items
1.The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald analysis Done

2.The credit cards issue Done

3.The foreclosure of the house in Tallahassee due to missed mortgage payments Done

4.The eminent domain legislation paragraphs Done

Okay, I suggest that we replace the paragraph on earmarks with the following:

[1]Sharockman, Aaron. "Marco Rubio wasn't always against earmarks, Florida Democrat claims", PolitiFact (November 16, 2010).

[2]Roig-Franzia, Manuel. The Rise of Marco Rubio, p. 106-107 (Simon & Schuster 2012).

[3]Caputo, Marc. "Rubio's campaign image belies history of $250 million in pork requests", Miami Herald (March 9, 2010).

[4]Kennedy, John. "Governor could ax these turkeys", Orlando Sentinel (May 23, 2007).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I would support the following text (immediately following the current Community Budget Issue Requests text, which I would leave alone), with the appropriate citations:


This text is, I think, fair. It accurately attributes and quotes the "dovetailed" language to the Times/Herald (avoiding the use of our own voice), and hews closely to the sources. It notes that the hospital funding was co-sponsored by all Miami-Dade legislators, while also forthrightly acknowledging the convergence of interests. I avoid entirely any reference to "turkeys" - I think it takes too long to explain, it's pretty subjective, and doesn't really help the reader all that much.
If it were me writing this article alone, I would note, as the Times/Herald does, that the teaching contract was $69,000 and that the hospital consulting contract was $8,000 month. But because I don't think you'd like that, my proposed language omits this in the interests of resolving the issue and moving forward. Neutralitytalk 06:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a version that blends elements of all 3 proposals:


This proposal is based on the following:

  • I've removed "many" from the first sentence as subjective and "turkey" from the second sentence as Neutrality suggested (and also because it's an informal name applied to list by the governor's staff).
  • If we're going to mention the list by the governor's office, then I think we have to mention the implication for Rubio. However, I've added a reference to Miami-Dade County to address Anythingyouwant's concern regarding what "hometown" means.
  • I've previously stated my own concerns about including any of the information from the list by the governor's office. If we are going to include it, then I think we need to include the context for how the list is prepared.
  • I included the assertion by the TBT/MH that "Rubio's spending requests dovetailed with his personal interests". Personally, I have significant concerns about this because there's been no evidence that personal interests played a role in Rubio's spending requests (This same argument has been used to block any reference to contributions to the Clinton Foundation by parties with business before the State Department when Hillary was Secretary of State in her bio.) However, since both Anythingyouwant and Neutrality included it in their proposals, I've included it in this one.
  • I included the reference to the spending item for the hospital since it was the only spending item mentioned in both the TBT/MH and Orlando Sentinel articles.

This is a good faith proposal. As I've stated above, I'm making it despite my own concerns about some of the content it includes. However, I'm reserving the right to change my stance on the content if there's further debate about it.CFredkin (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The existing material on earmarks can easily be shortened, and doing so helps to avoid this whole financial stuff becoming excessively long. Keep in mind that both Politifact and Roig-Franzia put Rubio's pork requests at $145 million, and so that conflicts somewhat with Crist's list ($250 million) and with Florida-Taxwatch's list, so we have to phrase this carefully to not say or imply that Politifact and Roig-Franzia are wrong about it. I don't care whether the term "turkey list" is used, so I have struck it out in my draft above. As a chronological matter, the present earmark paragraph is in the section on his tenure as state legislator before he was speaker, because most of his earmarks were in 2001 and 2002, and the earmarks allegedly stopped thereafter according to Politifact and Roig-Franzia. But Crist was not governor until much later, and that's why I kept his name out of it. Moreover, Crist's list was not the only list, so I don't see why it deserves special attention. As CFredkin says, the money for the hospital is a good example because it was on both Crist's list and Florida Taxwatch's list, so we need to have a reference for the Orlando Sentinel. I also like giving one example only because it's more concise and allows us to give a bit more detail about that example, instead of giving a more superficial list. I have no objection to striking out the word "many" as subjective, so I've done it. I think it's important to end up the material by saying something about his general attitude toward spending (i.e. fiscally conservative), because otherwise this earmark material is undue weight and misses the big picture.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant You make good points. My only reservations regarding your current proposal are:
  • I don't think we should use the term "unwanted", as I haven't seen any sources to support that.
  • Technically TaxWatch's list provides no indication of which legislators are responsible for the spending they list. It only shows the counties that benefited from it.
  • I think we should add "including Rubio", so the sentence doesn't appear to be a non sequitur.
Consequently I would propose the following modified sentence in your proposal:

Additionally, an office in the executive branch compiled a longer list of spending requests by legislators, including Rubio[3].CFredkin (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I amended the paragraph that I proposed, per this suggestion. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't done a detailed look at this latest proposal yet, but my two immediate reactions:
  • I do not want to use the word "asserted" (see WP:CLAIM - directing us to avoid synonyms for "said")
  • On the FIU material: The teaching gig has gotten a lot of attention (over a series of years), and we simply cannot ignore it. There are a number of sources that discuss it, and also mention the controversy about it. For example:
    • "Long Professor Rubio (longish Politico article by Marc Caputo in February 2015) ("Rubio began lecturing at FIU after term limits forced him in 2009 from the Florida House, where he served as speaker for two years. Because Rubio had helped steer money to the school, his teaching gig was controversial at first. Also, the idea of a teaching job for a pol rubbed some professors the wrong way in an era of budget cuts. But Democrats have since stopped criticizing the senator’s teaching arrangement...");
    • At Florida International University, GOP rising star Sen. Marco Rubio is professor Rubio (Tampa Bay Times article from April 2012) ("Rubio began teaching at FIU after leaving the Florida Legislature in 2008. (He has a law degree from the University of Miami, but no master's.) The soft landing raised questions, not least over state funding he helped the school secure. The president of FIU's faculty senate complained that Rubio was hired while programs were being cut and 200 jobs eliminated. Charlie Crist tried to make it an issue in their 2010 U.S. Senate race and Democrats made noise last year when Rubio rejoined the FIU faculty with clearance from the Senate. He makes $24,000 teaching four courses.");
    • Billionaire Lifts Marco Rubio, Politically and Personally (New York Times, May 2015) ("Later that year, when Mr. Rubio left state government, determined to shore up his finances before running for the United States Senate, he landed a teaching job at Florida International University, agreeing to raise much of his salary through private donations. Mr. Braman gave $100,000, according to records he shared with The New York Times. Dario Moreno, who oversaw the university center where Mr. Rubio worked and who taught classes with him, confirmed that Mr. Rubio had raised the money from Mr. Braman."
    • Senate run puts Rubio's ties to FIU under fiscal scrutiny (Times/Herald, December 2009).
I'm not firm on having the FIU material in the Legislature section specifically; I would be willing to put it in a different section or subsection, which may be better since the teaching job happened after he left the Legislature. But the topic should be in this article, as the sources dictate. Neutralitytalk 20:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll look this stuff over, and reply soon. I take it that the charge (which "Democrats have since stopped" making) was that the money for the university did not benefit Rubio much financially ($24,000 per year) but did benefit him by increasing the odds he would be hired.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Sort of but not quite. The sources indicate that this was one of a number of controversies over Florida universities hiring politicians, see here: "It illuminates the sway a handful of top elected officials have over taxpayer money and reflects a state college and university system that has become a friendly employment service for lawmakers who once oversaw their budgets...The 38-year-old lawyer and first Cuban-American to lead the Florida House is among about 20 current and former legislators who have found work at Florida's colleges and universities, a growing source of friction as budget resources dwindle."
I may come up with language, unless someone else wants a crack at it. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to take a crack at it. There is already a sentence under his Senate tenure that says "Rubio has also taught a political science course at Florida International University while serving as a U.S. Senator.[84] The class met on Mondays and Fridays, when the Senate was not in session.[84]" I think that would be the appropriate spot to mention controversy about it, rather than in the state legislature section, because he did not teach when he was a state legislator, and because it's best to keep the teaching stuff consolidated together for readability. Okay so far?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Rubio has taught at FIU both before and after the U.S. Senate, so we should probably move the text to a different (or a new) section or subsection. (He starting teaching in 2009, after leaving the Legislature, but did not become a senator until 2011 - our article as it is now implies that he only started teaching after he became a senator, which is misleading).
I do agree, of course, that we should keep the teaching materials consolidated. Neutralitytalk 00:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give it a go tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just made some edits that I hope might enable us to put a check mark next to the first "Disputed item": The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald analysis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your adds on the professorship. It looks very good. I have made some edits, which are fairly modest and preserve the vast majority of what you had written.
(I added a missing ref URL, swapped the order of two paragraphs, added a specific reference to the faculty senate chair, added a brief list of the courses taught, added a note that the position wasn't advertised (which goes to the controversy), noted the official name of the school (it's apparently the "Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs" now), and shortened the quotations from the FIU director. I also took out some material on Rubio's teaching style that I thought was pretty standard (I don't think we needed the bit on Rubio "talking continuously without notes, posing questions to students, amusing them with humor" since that is what many professors do).
Let me know if this looks good. Neutralitytalk 04:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Politico reports that, "Democrats have since stopped criticizing the senator’s teaching arrangement...." Why remove that? I also disagree with switching the paragraphs, because it seems best to describe his professorship as a professorship before detouring into political objections that have since been abandoned, and otherwise we give undue weight to the controversy. Even if the political objections had not been abandoned, it still seems best to cover the professorship itself first, because the reporting makes clear that any controversy here was actually very narrow: it was about how fast Rubio got the state benefits delivered to FIU rather than whether FIU would get those benefits in the first place. A smaller objection is that I liked including Rubio's stated motivation: to teach students what's really going on behind the news. Overall, I think we need to be very careful not to let what may be a faux or obsolete controversy drown out a rather long and continuing career in higher education.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A fair point. I'll take them in order: (1) I wanted to avoided excessive quoting, since the article is already fairly quote-heavy, so I changed the quote to a paraphrase: it now says "criticism of the teaching arrangement has diminished with time..." Same thing, different wording; (2) the change of order was for two reasons: first, it's chronological (the controversy happened as soon as he was hired, so it makes sense to describe it there) and secondly, it's reflective of importance (the wider reaction is probably more important than his teaching style). We do cover the professorship itself before the controversy, in that we say that in 2010, he started teaching at FIU as an adjunct. So the very first sentence doesn't mention the controversy at all, and quite properly so.
On the stated motivation: I thought it was sort of boilerplate, if you really like it, and if it would help us get to a consensus, I can live with it going back in. Neutralitytalk 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Paraphrasing may be okay if the paraphrase is accurate. Politico reports that, "Democrats have since stopped criticizing the senator’s teaching arrangement...." This is not accurately paraphrased by "criticism of the teaching arrangement has diminished with time...". Please try again. Perhaps something like "Democrats no longer criticize the teaching arrangement". Again, I point out that the controversy has boiled down to the speed with which FIU received state aid that they were always going to receive, so it seems quite understandable that political opponents would look for other flaws in Rubio. Let's not give this undue weight.
On the stated motivation, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(1) The Politico article is only one formulation. There are other formulations, too, and most of them neither say "stopped" or reference Democrats in particular: St. Pete Times ("controversial at the time..."); NBC Miami ("faced some criticism at the time"). There's also some recent pieces which suggest that it's still controversial, e.g., Miami New Times ("There's the controversial job he snagged at FIU"). If you are really attached to the Politico formulation, I might be OK with it depending on what the rest of the section looks like, but I tend to think it's not the best formulation (which is one of the reasons I paraphrased). I'm also reluctant to frame anything in definitive terms, since in campaign season there are new historical things constantly being resurrected about the candidates.
(2) The sources clearly indicate that it wasn't just about the legislative appropriations. It was about that, plus the fact that FIU was having a budget crisis at the time, plus the post was unadvertised. I completely agree that we needn't dwell on the controversy, but I think that a sense of completeness requires us to mention, albeit briefly, the various motivations for the grumbling, etc.
(BTW, I personally think this is a B.S. issue, but the job has been part of Rubio's life for many years.) Neutralitytalk 05:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
None of the sources you cite in any way contradict the Politico statement that "Democrats have since stopped criticizing the senator’s teaching arrangement...." This is not accurately paraphrased by "criticism of the teaching arrangement has diminished with time...". An accurate paraphrase of the Politico statement in combination with those that you cite would be this: "Although Democrats criticized the teaching arrangement at the time it was made, the matter is no longer a subject of partisan controversy". The only source you claim suggests it is still a matter of partisan controversy is a very brief comment by Miami New Times that "There's the controversial job he snagged at FIU". That's entirely consistent with the job having merely been controversial when he snagged it, and the Miami New Times merely purports to summarize a New York Times piece that merely says that there was "a billionaire who subsidized Mr. Rubio’s job as a college instructor" (nothing about controversy there at all). Over time, the reporting on this issue has established that the only real issue was the speediness of state aid, not its existence, and over time Democrats have dropped the matter. Giving it such attention here is undue weight, and your paraphrase of the totality of your sources is not accurate. The Miami New Times did not in any way suggest that the matter remains controversial. Moreover, the budget issues that plagued the university at that time apparently indicate that a free professor would have been helpful rather than hurtful to the university, so I do not understand your reliance on that point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
My point is not that they "contradict" the Politico source; it's that the bulk of sources phrase it slightly differently.
A thought occurred to me. In the interests of simplicity, we could add "at the time" immediately following "...appointment as an FIU professor was controversial," and then cite to the Politico article and St. Pete Times article. That would be short, sweet, and accurate. Thoughts?
As to the rest: the prior legislative role was the main thrust of the controversy, yes, but again, the source are clear that other things were criticized (rightly or wrongly). (Also note that he wasn't a "free" professor; the Tampa Bay Times says that private donations subsidized most, but not all, of his salary). Neutralitytalk 05:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Getting $10,000 for working two years is essentially working for free ("Rubio covered all but $10,000 of his salary and health insurance costs by raising $125,000 over the past two years"). As to your suggestion about "at the time", thanks for the suggestion but the problem here is that the bulk of sources are not discussing whether or not there's still a controversy. Politico addresses it but the other sources you cite don't give any opinion about it. If I give you one book on geography that says Florida is a peninsula, and give you a hundred books on renaissance painting that say nothing about Florida, then we should not hesitate to say Florida is a peninsula using the first book as a reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you disagree that "at the time" would accurately reflect the Politico source? It would be entirely consistent with it, if very slightly less specific. "At the time" clearly implied "but no longer."
I am going offline. Let's pick this up tomorrow. I do think we are inching toward a resolution. Neutralitytalk 06:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it's reasonable to cover an obsolete and abandoned controversy in great depth before even mentioning what kind of a professor he's been. The most notable point here is that as of now there is no controversy, and chronologically that comes last.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that approach is somewhat recentistic. This is a biography, and so the fact that a controversy may be "obsolete and abandoned" is meaningless. See, for example, Richard Blumenthal#Misrepresenting military service allegations. This controversy is now long out-of-date, yet we retain it because it is part of the historical record. There may be "no controversy" now, but that does not mean there never was.
Separately, I still think the controversy should come before the description of Rubio's classroom style, his teaching philosophy, etc., which I think is very RateMyProfessor/alumni magazine-ish.
Nevertheless, I think I can live with the most current text. It's not perfect, in my mind, but it is sufficient. (I would like to hear from other editors, of course, and new information can always change the calculus.
I have made the following edits to the section (mostly pertaining to edits that Prof. JR, not you, made).
First: I moved down the director's quote to the final paragraph (because it relates to the university's rationale for the hire) and shortened it slightly, because it is repetitious: we don't need four sentences from a single third party, nor two separate references to opportunity. (I believe you are fine with this; Prof. JR was the one who added in more from this quote).
Second: I removed the quote about Rubio being "easygoing and relaxed in this setting, delivering an hour-long lecture without notes and holding his students' attention." We already say that he is a popular professor; I do not think we need to spell out all the very common things that popular professors do (this is like saying something generic like "As a Senator, Rubio asks questions in committee hearings" - true but obvious). I believe @Cwobeel: agrees with me that we just don't need this quote.
Third: Prof. JR removed the salary information, and I've added it back in. Despite disagreeing on many points, both of us have included it in all of our versions from the start (I believe), and since it is well-sourced and brief I see no reason to exclude it).
Neutralitytalk 23:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with these edits. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Neutrality, I'm glad you can live with it. I've never been in favor of a purely chronological approach, only a roughly chronological approach that takes into account other things. For example, his FIU teaching, and the kerfuffle about it, do not fit perfectly neatly between his time as state legislator and federal legislator, and yet I think we both agree that the section about it belongs between those two for various reasons that are not purely chronological. If no objection, I will mark the first item (atop this subsection) as done. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No objection. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're pretty much done with the credit card stuff too, right? And the last item is eminent domain which I suppose refers to Kelo? Are we done with that too?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Political positions & fact checking

This is a bio, but we have a political positions section, in which we report on the subjects' viewpoints, including comments that have been debunked or fact checked. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit is undue and not relevant for his bio.CFredkin (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. It is not undue to present the viewpoint of a LP in his bio, and fact checking related to the viewpoint as reported in reliable sources. That is what that section is about. We are not here to cherry-pick which statements by politicians we include or exclude, and neither we are here not to include commentary about these positions as reported in reliable sources. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a talking points website for Rubio. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree.... we are not here to cherry-pick gotcha statements by politicians. This is a BLP, not a PolitiFact article.CFredkin (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Rubio advocates for vocational education, so you are saying that including his own comments is undue? If that is the case, we should remove most of the material in the political positions article. That is unless you are OK to include his statement, but omit the fact-checking, which would result in a violation of NPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
That's on the money. At a minimum, something like this belongs in a "Rubio presidential campaign" article. Is there one? This would be a way to deal with the NPOV problem -- move a lot of "positions" there so that they don't clog up the BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
His political positions extend beyond the current run for the nomination, and all his political positions are described in this article. If the Political Positions section becomes too big, we can WP:SPLIT, but I don't think we are at that point. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
His support for vocational education is already included in the article. What I'm objecting to is inclusion of a gotcha statement, which even Politico admits is only factually inaccurate in certain situations.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

According to a research fellow at the Acton Institute, "only 35% of philosophy majors, the lowest percentage of all college majors listed, are still working in their field".[8]. I very much support describing Rubio's positions, but I oppose describing the positions and arguments of others, either for or against Rubio's positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully we all understand the difference between a blog hosted by the Acton Institute (a right-wing think tank) and an independent, reliable source. Insofar as Rubio made a blanket statement that welders earn more than philosophy majors, he is wrong under any set of reasonable parameters. That said, I don't see that this is relevant enough to include in his bio. If we covered at length every false, misleading, or laughable claim made in a Presidential debate, the candidates' bios would consist of little else. MastCell Talk 17:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No one is asking to include "the positions and arguments of others", but if a politician makes an argument that is challenged in reliable sources, not including it is a violation of NPOV. This is a bio, not an official Rubio talking point website. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No matter whether the source is reliable or not, I oppose mentioning that only 35% of philosophy majors, the lowest percentage of all college majors, are still working in their field. The section is about Rubio's positions, not about critiques of (or counterargument against) his positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
But this isn't a campaign website, and his positions don't exist in a vacuum. An encyclopedia doesn't regurgitate a candidate's platform; it provides appropriate context. (That said, I agree that the welders-vs.-philosophers error isn't notable enough to deserve mention here). MastCell Talk 20:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Appropriate context does not include saying why he's wrong, IMHO. I don't support regurgitation, but brief summaries would be adequate. Note that the Hillary Clinton article doesn't even include brief summaries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Because Clinton has an extensive article about her political positions Political positions of Hillary Clinton that is larger in size that this entire article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, do we have a deal that once there is a separate article for Rubio's political positions then we will stop summarizing them here and stop using this main article to summarize the attacks on Rubio's positions?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


The argument about fact-checking media vs. other media seems to me to be beside the point, since PolitiFact is not the only one to mention the welders vs. philosophers statement.

Other outlets have also covered it; for example, The Washington Post ("Sorry, Marco Rubio. Philosophy majors actually make way more than welders"); CNN ("Marco Rubio's quip about welders gets torched"), NYTimes ("Philosophers (and Welders) React to Marco Rubio’s Debate Comments").

I don't have a strong opinion as yet on whether this should go into the campaign article or into the biographical article, but wherever it goes, there are sources to draw upon. Neutralitytalk 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a great example of WP:recentism: something that's mentioned briefly by a few media sources, but which won't be discussed or remembered after a short period of time. It's hardly a blip even in the context of the campaign, much less Rubio's BLP.CFredkin (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
"Rubio's BLP" includes a section on his political positions. As such and for NPOV, we ought to describe significant viewpoints about said political positions. NPOV is non-negotiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I think a key part of the equation is whether something is a one-off or part of a stump speech (i.e., repeated). If the former, then omitting it in the biographical article makes sense; if the latter, then inclusion makes sense. (Inclusion in the campaign article is a much easier case than in the biographical article; that is where most "blips" should go).
If we do include a given statement/proposal/policy, of course, we absolutely cannot ignore what the set of reliable sources say on (1) whether the claim is false, realistic, etc. and (2) what the actual impact of the proposal would be. That would violate NPOV, because it would selectively write out a piece of the story necessary for context. I would not consider such elaboration to be merely "the views of others" or "criticism/attacks"; rather I would consider the statements necessary for the reader's full understanding. Neutralitytalk 23:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The content in question has to do with the relative pay of welders vs. philosophers. That's not a political position.CFredkin (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
of course it is. He is using these purportedly false facts for advocating for vocational training instead of 4-year college education. It is part of his stump speech. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The relative pay claim was advanced in a presidential debate in the context of higher education policy, arguing about what society and the government should subsidize and incentivize. One would be hard-pressed to say that it's not political. This is the same thing as politicians giving various pay gap statistics to argue for or against the Ledbetter Act. These are factual assertions used to advance a political point. Neutralitytalk 23:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't remember the exact wording, but in one of his speeches he stated the same thing, but elaborated on why he advocates some students going to vocational school instead of taking on loan debt, and how there were far fewer jobs for philosophy majors in their field than there are for available for welders. Can't find the source right now, but just thought it might be relevant to this anyway, though I don't think the comment really falls under his position one way or another. MavsFan28 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead on 2010 election

I'm not sure if this is a case of someone trying to paint him as the ultimate underdog for winning in 2010, or if this is simply a mistake of undue weight, but its a little crazy that the 2010 election section is so small yet the part about it in the lead is a full paragraph. Shouldn't there be something mentioned about his notability in the senate (ie immigration)? MavsFan28 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@MavsFan28: Good suggestion. Have tried to consolidate discussion of 2010 Senate election into that section in body of article, and make lede more concise. See what you think. (I believe his work on immigration is covered in the "Immigration" subsection.) --- Professor JR (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Professor JR: I do think that there should be some mention of the immigration bill due to his notability with it (opposed by many in his party, most prominent legislation he's pushed thus far, etc), but this version is definit
Rubio has taken stances on many issues. It's questionable whether immigration is the most important. Also, his stance on immigration has also changed over time.Eeyoresdream (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I worded it as immigration reform, which he has always supported regardless of the specifics. But I see your point. I think the lead should have something on his time in the senate though, maybe the committees he's served on if nothing else. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Political Positions

Regarding the following statement which is currently included in the summary of the Political Positions section, I haven't found any reliable sources that support the statement that Rubio supports indefinite detention. I also haven't found reliable sources to support the claim that he supports war against ISIS without explicit congressional approval. Any objection to removing them?


Really not sure what to make of this post. In the first source given at the end of the sentence [9], we see: "Rubio’s support for indefinite detention, support for arming the Syrian rebels, support for the war against ISIS without explicit congressional approval, and support for the NSA." What exactly is the problem? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
To clarify... the source provided for the statement in the article claims that Rubio supports indefinite detention. Indefinite detention for whom? Terrorists? Criminals? Americans? Guinea Pigs? I can't find any other reliable sources to provide clarity on this. It's already noted in the article that Rubio supports detention of terrorists at Guantanamo. We could say that he supports detention of terrorists based on that, but it's wildly misleading to leave it as it is.CFredkin (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, this source seems to contradict the statement that Rubio supports war against ISIS without explicit congressional approval:


Ancestry out of the lede

Moved discussion of his ancestry out of the lede, including an absurd sentence asserting that "Rubio and is one of three Latin Americans currently serving in the Senate." For the record, Rubio is an American. His parents came from Cuba. He was born in the USA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I have also enlarged the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe it was meant to be "Latino American" which Rubio is, as it means anyone of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, Guatemalan, and Colombian origin/ descent currently residing in the US (regardless of the country they are born in). MavsFan28 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It now says "Latino American" later in the article, which seems adequate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Being one of the few Latino Americans in the senate is pretty significant, which is why its mentioned on the other two senators articles as well. It should be in the lead. For some reason, a lot of people seem to oppose saying Cuban Americans are Latinos. MavsFan28 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. There are lots of senators of various ethnicities and genders and religions, and I'm not sure if that stuff always has to be in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is relevant material. He is an American alright, but one of the handful Latinos in the Senate. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If it's notable, as it is in this case, it does belong there. Saying he's one of many Catholics/ Christians is not relevant in the lead, because its not uncommon for Senators to be. MavsFan28 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marco_Rubio/Archive_3&oldid=702044323"