The second paragraph makes allegations that Jeb and George Bush were guilty of illegal drug possession and/or use without any concrete evidence either cited or, to my knowledge, in existence. I myself truly believe that both men were guilty of such allegations but everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Jeb admitted to smoking marijuana (both possession and use), whereas George confessed to abusing alcohol for 20 years, and refused to answer if he used cocaine before 1974 (but said he did not use it after that). So of the two men, Jeb is a sure thing; George is more nebulous. 70.176.186.10
I removed the NPOV tag, and replaced it with {{cleanup}}, not because I think the article's unbiased but because there's no active dispute. Plus there are other problems besides POV: the writing's all over the place, the list of arrests needs to be either formatted or removed, and it needs some general copyediting help. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 06:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:01-29-inside-noelle-bush-1-.jpg is about Noelle Bush, so it should stays this article. There is no reason it is copyvio. The photo is a mugshot, and therefore has been released into the public domain, because photos taken by state police cannot be eligible for copyright. Don't worry about this coming from CNN.com. Adnghiem501 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been cleaned up and is very readable. The NPOV tag should go, as this article is fair to her history. Her birthplace is needed. Gilliamjf 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address has removed material from this article, from Jeb Bush, Jr., and from George P. Bush, and also made a request at Talk:George P. Bush regarding a privacy issue. Although the subjects of biographies of living persons, and their associates, may not be happy with negative infromation in our articles, neither do they have ownership veto over the inclusion of properly cited material. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that noelle embarrasses her relatives has nothing to do with providing information about people and events on an encylopedia
to even take politics into account violates npov
wikipedia is not about saving face or hiding unpleasant facts or about hostage exchanging al gore III's page for noelle bush's page
it is about giving honest information that is as objective as possible..
and yes they are public figures as the relatives of prominent public figures
thats why the media doesnt have to get a video release to use their likeness.
This entire paragraph is without attribution. Using the word "likely" shouldn't appear in an article. Also stated without proof is the statement "a much-publicized goal of the DNC ..." JohnAKeith (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before Bush's re-election, no Republican in Florida had ever been re-elected to serve a second term as the state's Governor. In addition, there was likely no precedent for any Governor to be branded by the opposition as its "Number One Target" for removal from office, as Bush was ranked in 2002. This was not merely a statewide effort to oust the Republican Governor, but a much-publicized goal of the DNC and its highest leadership during the 2002 election cycle.
I'm not Wiki-savvy, so I won't go trying to fix this myself (I'm afraid I'd probably delete the wrong thing or something); but the 14th endnote leads to a CNN page that doesn't exist anymore. I don't know what the policy is about expired references, but just thought I'd mention that. 69.153.19.102 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeb Bush does not have the title of "Honorable". No other Governor of Florida has ever held that title. In the United States, "Honorable" is a title reserved for the judiciary, as in the Honorable William Rehnquist. Therefore, it has to be removed.--Mtrisk 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping people from having to wade through the mess that is the archive of this talk page, allow me to paste in some comments that others have made in the past on this subject. --BaronLarf 01:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
In the US, "Honorable" is reserved for judges and judges alone. not political leaders of parties. also, as Noam Chomsky says: "I don't hate the US. I love the US. I think it's the greatest country in the world. You are confusing my critique of the leaders of the US with hate and you are branding it as un-patriotic." Project2501a 14:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every American school child is taught that when writing to a Congressman, Honorable is the accepted form of address, and that will in fact get the letter read and responded to quicker. A Governor, in the United States, is not a political leader of a party, he is a fiduciary or trustee. Just as I don't pretend to understand the fealty of the British system, I would hope British partisans would leave us Americans to resolve our own partisan differences and not foster the transatlantic dispute any further unnecessarily. Nobs 20:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the correctness of titles, but with their usage in Wikipedia. My understanding is that most titles, especially honorifics, aren't used, or that when they are they're abbreviated (especially in image captions and the like). In any case, the issue of "honourable" is pretty trivial, and surely not what all the above posturing and bad rhetoric is about. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me — I hadn't noticed. I see that the current favourite (as it were) is "The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed". If you can't have democracy, voting is the next best thing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Three simple examples: A Congressman, The Honorable Newt Gingrich (FBI letter to Gingrich) [1]; A Senator, The Honorable Hilary Rodham Clinton[2]; a Governor, The Honorable Bill Richardson, (2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful, from 2004 Democratic Convention Speaking schedule) [3]. Dispite all the stereotypes Europeans have about Americans, we actually aren't that crude and crass in our civil dealings with one another. Nobs 16:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what all this stuff about the U.S. and Europe has to do with it all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the original premise is correct, that a Brit removed "Honorable" title from Jeb Bush's office. Personally, I don't feel the necessity to investigate every users credentials, unless there's an unfounded rumor or innuendo. I prefer the focus on subtance of the discussion. As an aside, don't you find interesting the DNC use of the title "Honorable" on the entire list? [4] After reading through the entire list of "Honorables" (General Wesley Clark excepted), one finds at the bottom John Kerry (not even listed as Senator John Kerry). Truelly, this is typically American. Kindest regards Nobs 20:57, 16 May in the Vulgar era 2005 (UTC)
This discussion is all very well, but the comment at the top of the page needs to be answered if the title is to be reinserted in the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)
Supreme Court of Florida addresses the Honorable Lawton Chiles, Governor of the State of Florida [5]. The Hon. Peter Deutch in the House of Representatives commends the Honorable Lawton Chiles, Governor of the State of Florida, for proclaiming Race Unity Day in Florida [6]. Florida Corrections Commission Chairman cover letter to the Honorable Lawton Chiles for the Report on Execution Methods Used by States[7]. Nobs01 1 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
[8] Here is the UMW writing sheet on this subject. Governors are entitled to "The Honorable"74.193.235.188 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article 1, Section 8 US Constitution says that Americans may not accept titles. Perhaps this refers to not being allowed to inherit a title, but still being allowed to inherit property.
Whatever. Recently during Supreme Court hearings one of the judges objected because the lawyer did not say address his comment to a "Justice". He insisted upon being called "Justice" Judge Kennedy then pointed out that the US Constitution also makes that mistake. Frizb (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biased statement, factual inaccuracy, one excision[edit]
"Like most Republicans, he is perceived as being generally pro-business, and has worked to repeal several taxes in Florida."
Left intact as it seems likely true, but if some documented examples could be provided it would be a Good Thing.
"Some opponents have questioned whether he or Secretary of State Katherine Harris attempted to help his brother in the 2000 presidential election, in which his brother's victory over Democratic candidate Al Gore was secured through a complicated process of recounts and court battles in Florida."
There is no requirement for anyone to be an "opponent" or "supporter" to observe the controvery surrounding Jeb and Katherine in the 2000 election.
Further, the 2000 election was secured by the Supreme Court's decision and George Bush's Campaign Co-chairman. The votes were officially left uncounted and the Florida courts were cut out of the picture altogether.
This has been reworded to:
"Some observers have questioned whether he or Secretary of State Katherine Harris attempted to help his brother in the 2000 presidential election by tampering with the voter roles and then certifying a controversial election."
"They have also pointed to Bush's daughter Noelle Bush who successfully completed rehabilitation for her drug abuse."
Further comment about is daughter's rehabilitation would we welcome concerning this statement from the same paragraph. In the context of this paragraph is seem irrelevant at best or completely out of place at worse. In its presentl wording it sounds like an accomplisment, not a criticism. It should be placed in his bio, or his daughter's bio, not with criticism of his Governorship. If there is more to this story that justifies its presence, please expand on it and add it back to the main article.
--Mccabem 17:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited and wikified the following section, but then thought that it's not really needed:
==Bush and EA Tiburon==
Jeb visited EA Tiburon to see Madden NFL 06's gameplay and new features. The Tiburon team added a little surprise in the video demonstration: Jeb and George Bush are the players in a clash between the Miami Dolphins and the Dallas Cowboys. Jeb burst into laughter because the video shows Jeb tackling George and then Jeb went for touchdown. The video of the Bush brothers is not available in the retail version. Jeb received an autographed copy of Madden NFL 06 for XBOX and two DVD copies of the Bush vs Bush video. Jeb is a big fan of football and video games.
It's just one of probably thousands of visits made by a serving politician to a company, complete with the usual "human interest" details for the purposes of Pres Releases. Am I missing some deeper significance? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How could his wife have persuaded him to covert? The churches are nearly the same (see page 21 of The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People, 2nd edition, by Alan Brinkley).--HistoricalPisces 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? Anglicanism may be closer to Catholicism than any other Protestant movement, but it's still Protestant. --Saforrest 01:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Episcopalianism/Anglicanism is not Protestant. Episcopalians do not consider themselves Protestants in any technical sense. Episcopalianism cannot be traced back to the Protestant Reformation. Episcopalians are indeed often referred to as Protestants, by people who assume all non-Catholic Christians must necessarily be Protestant by definition. But that is not the case. Episcopalianism represents an anomaly. This page should refer to Jeb Bush as having been a former Episcopalian, not a former Protestant.
I agree it's better to say "former Episcopalian", but I will just point out that the Episcopal Church of the US used to call itself the Protestant Episcopal Church of the US. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is, the article is neutral, but strangely lacking in information at certain key places. For example:
He started a non-profit organization called "The Foundation For Florida’s Future" which was described by some as a "think tank". Its stated mission was to influence public policy at the grassroots level.
There's nothing disputable with the above, but no information on how it tried to influence public policy is provided. From the fact that Bush was involved in it, and from its support for charter schools, I suppose it was a conservative think tank, but this isn't explained, even though it could be neutrally said. This pattern reappears throughout the article. --Saforrest 01:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did Jeb Bush really have an influence in the 2000 presidential election? This article [9] states that he was not involved Green caterpillar 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeb Bush's kids are not adopted, why does it say that in the article?
It's part of a conspiracy. We just figured you weren't cool enough to know about it, so we didn't tell you.--65.31.150.139 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK media it was stated that in the 1994 election, in response to a question as to what he would do for Black people in Florida if elected, Jeb Bush was reported to have replied "Probably nothing", which had a great deal to do with his loss in that election. Is that true/verifiable? Legis 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it is true.
NY Times Feb 4, 2000 - Article Headline - "Jeb Bush Roils Florida on Affirmative Action"
"Bishop Victor T. Curry, pastor of the New Birth Baptist Church in Miami and president of the Miami-Dade County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, recalled Mr. Bush's defeat in his first race for governor six years ago and his statement then that he would do probably nothing to help African-Americans."
NY Times April 21, 2002 - Article Headline - "America in Extremis"
"In 1994, two years after his father lost the White House, Jeb Bush decided to run for governor, though he ultimately lost to the incumbent, Lawton Chiles. (In the same election year, his brother unseated the incumbent Ann Richards to become governor of Texas.) Jeb Bush's campaign was reportedly disorganized, and one comment in particular did little to endear him to undecided voters: when asked what he might do for black Floridians if elected, he responded testily, Probably nothing. In 1998, having tried to make amends with black voters and casting himself as more moderate, Bush ran again, in more disciplined fashion, and won handily." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BluePenEditor (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be worth mentioning that 'ole Jeb lost his first election attempt by only a few votes. I wouldn't call his campaign "disorganized", especially a beginner running against an incumbant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.15.64 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeb Bush's daughter (and presidential niece) Noelle Bush was arrested in 2002 for fraudulently obtaining a prescription for Xanax. During her time at the rehabilitation facility, Noelle Bush was jailed for contempt of court twice; first, for stealing prescription pills from a nurses' office, and second, for being caught with crack cocaine.
These incididents occurred during Jeb Bush's current term as Florida governor and became highly politicized as an example of the double-standard applied to drug users from powerful or wealthy families. The Salon.com article referred in Jeb's article specifically discusses the issue. I feel that Jeb Bush's Wikipedia article is doing a disservice to its readers by not mentioning this controversy.
Adversive 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I think the current treatment is overly long. It's not about Jeb Bush, but about his daughter. A short comment should be enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the (hidden) note in the article about the section on lieutenant governors being too long for an article on J. Bush, but if it is left as is, could someone who actually knows something about the history of Florida politics please clarify "...Brogan ... opted not to serve a second term. Brogan was reelected to a second term in 2002 with Bush and then resigned..." Does this mean that he went into the election planning not to serve his term if elected? (If so, that could be stated.) Or that he made up his mind after election but before inauguration? (In which case the sentences are out of order, as they imply a chronology.) Or that he changed his mind after inauguration? (Also out of order.) In any case, can someone provide a reference to this? I simply looked on the Frank Brogan article and found less about this matter than on the JEB page... Did not chase it off-wiki, as I'm sure that some of the many (!!) people who follow this article already know the details... Pawl 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Florida's Governor is not listed at the SGA wiki page nor is Florida's governor listed at the website for the SGA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by66.176.204.116 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 October 2006.
Agreed. I removed that from the article, and broke up that section into two. (The section was headed Florida Cabinet but dealt with other things, also.) Probably the new section as it stands now is too trivial to remain, but I'll let others decide that. This is not an article where I want to make changes to content without discussion. Pawl 21:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category box, is in error, Crist hasn't taken office yet. At the least, his name should be listed as 'Crist (elect)'. GoodDay 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your talk page. I'm not a historian or an editor, I am just a Floridian who wishes any encyclopedic portrayal of Jeb Bush to be accurate.
Please reference the article Stephen Pizzo wrote for Mother Jones in March/April 1994 issue titled Whitewashing the Bush Brothers, as well as the 1987 Wall Street Journal article about Jeb Bush that Pizzo referred to.
Please reference an article written by Howard L. Simon, published in the Daytona Beach News Journal in January, titled "Jeb Bush legacy: Unflattering view".
Please reference news articles on Martin Lee Anderson and other youths who did not survive the juvenile justice system, and re-instate the information on Noel Bush's criminal history. The significance of her incarcerations is that they caused her no harm. Please reference Jeb Bush's remarks on the record concerning his approval of justice being slow for the Anderson family.
Please reference news articles on Jeb Bush failing to honor Wilton Dedge's request for an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutorial deployment of prison snitch Clarence Zacke cost Mr. Dedge 22 years of his life, but cost Gerald Stano his very life.
Please reference articles on Jeb Bush allowing the FBI and municipal police departments to target peace protestors as potential terrorists.
Please reference articles that balance your biography. SusanChandler 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted ACV777's edit as it appears to remove accurate information from the article and replace it with false information, e.g. removing the reference to the "15 years" that Terri Schaivo was on a feeding tube and replacing it with "a brief time". 15 years may be a brief time in the context of the lifespan of the universe, but it is a relatively long time for a person to be on a feeding tube. Cheers! bd2412T 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeb is depicted as a mentally retarded child with an uni-brow in the Comedy Central animated television show "Lil' Bush". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry B. Hinds (talk • contribs) 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who wrote this section? Was it some PR company working for Jeb? This section is awfull someone should unlock it and rewrite it. Jeb Bush's policy on environment was in reality very bad. You can see some of his environmental "achievements" on this site:
http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/everglades/everglades_restoration.pdf
Please! Someone needs to seriously rewrite this. It is a pure joke in the state in which it is now. The starting line is a serious killer "Bush signed legislation to protect the Everglades and opposed federal plans to drill for oil off the coast of Florida. In early October 2005" LOL oh please give me a break! Maybe it was not written by PR company, maybe internt of his has his hand in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.147.146 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on John Ellis Bush, Jr. and Noelle Lucila Bush look like little more than attack pieces. Is the only thing notable about these persons related to their infractions of the law?--MONGO (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What do his children's legal infractions have to do with him anyway. I think it is best that we remove these sections because they have little relation to Jed Bush. (They do not mention Jed's role in the incidents. What did he do about them etc.) Do we include personal information about the children of most politicians? I'm pretty sure we don't. It is typically not standard Wikipedia policy to discuss a guy's kids in his own wikipedia page. These are little more than attacks that should be removed.
The section has him as only getting 56 votes by the Hispanic community and 80 votes by the Cuban, which I'm guessing should be percentages in reality. But I can't change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.230.39 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He has received media attention on two occasions: in 2000, at age 16, he was caught having sex in a Tallahassee, Florida, mall parking lot with a 17-year-old girl" Makes it sound like Jeb was 16-years-old in the year 2000.
72.211.203.64 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a section for this? Many people consider him unintelligent and satirize the opinion(see Lil Bush for an example. Perhaps an "In Popular Culture" section? Max.goedjen (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently reads like an uncritical puff piece. I think there needs to be a section on criticism or alternative points of view. Daffodillman (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that line should stand it is not 'dubious', I can see how it might be considered an example of NVOP. However, I'm sure that everyone would agree that there is an interesting and valid debate about whether the death penalty and abortion are comparable.
It is hard to see how it could be reworded in a less controversial manner.
If that line goes then the whole section is 'dubious' and needs rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyBurgess (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample information on Mr. Recarey online; perhaps a paragraph could be added with inforamtion, either from the Guardian UK article, or another source, such as the Wall Street Journal, which covered it, too. JohnAKeith (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone wrote a complete paragraph on a man named Miguel Recarey. No introduction is given as to who he is, and why it is a controversy. instead the writer chooses to defend Jeb and side with his actions with little context. I'm concerned that it is not a neutral POV—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.190.67 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeb Bush forms new company and gets into 'privatized' disaster response business[edit]
"Bush has joined forces with O'Brien's Response Management, an emergency planning company,... O'Brien's is a a wholly owned subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings Inc. and joined forces with Bush's company, Old Rhodes Holdings LLC.... Old Rhodes Holdings LLC was formed on Aug. 30, 2011, with Bush's former general counsel Rocky Rodriquez serving as his registered agent, according to the Florida Division of Corporations. Bush and Amar Bajpai are the only officers. The two also formed Britton Hill Partners. Both companies are based on Coral Gables." Jeb Bush forms new company and gets into 'privatized' disaster response business tampabay.com SEPTEMBER 15, 2011— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.46.251 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where do we list his new national policy positions? Hcobb (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noelle Bush drug arrests whitewashed out of article[edit]
This article once included details about Noelle Bush's several drug arrests and prosecutions[10][11]. Now that's all been sanitized out of the article with utterly no mention. Is this in preparation for Jeb Bush's run for the presidency? It's a rather pathetic attempt at propaganda, the sort of thing the Stalinists used to do, trying to whitewash something out of existence. In this digital age, it's absurd. 92.48.194.156 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Before deciding to run for re-election, Bush denied rumors that he was having an affair with Cynthia Henderson, who Bush had previously appointed to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Bush called the rumors an "outright lie."[1][2]"
The story was picked up by ABC News, the BBC, and numerous other outlets, so I think it's clearly notable. I included a denial of the affair, so I don't think it's an NPOV violation. The mention is very brief, so I don't think there's an issue of undue weight. User:Fat&Happy deleted it, arguing "one-time minor story; no lasting effect, no overall relevance to his biography." I disagree that it's a minor story given that it was picked up by multiple major out-of-state outlets (I can provide more news sources if necessary, or you can simply search "cynthia henderson" "jeb bush" on Google). What do other people think? Orser67 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems extremely minor. An accusation without evidence, summarily denied. If we included every one of these, all politicians' articles would be huge. Unless more develops in the story, I'd say leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An IP keeps inserting the image at left, into the infobox at the top of the article.
That 2004 image is old, it is already lower-down in the article, and no edit summary explains why it should be at the top. Accordingly, I will reinsert the newer image, which is at right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this keeps up, the page should be semi-protected. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article quotes (without naming) Jon Terbush, who wrote, "it's not hard to imagine Bush's GOP opponents, should he run for president, ganging up on him for his association with Tenet, much like Mitt Romney's foes beat up on him for signing off on Massachusetts' health-care overhaul."
I think it would be better for the Wikipedia article to just say that Bush has opposed the ACA but keeps his personal and political views separate from his professional responsibilities. I inserted the latter, but have not yet removed the former (Terbush) stuff. When we depart from basic facts and start including speculation like this, we risk bloating the article, and also risk including only negative speculation (e.g. leaving out speculation that he would be the best candidate).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
silly season can at least wait until announcements are made[edit]
The adding of trivia not considered important by major reliable sources is pretty useless and seems to be based on Wikipedia being a daily newspaper. It isn't. Wait until multiple major sources bring up actual issues before littering this BLP with trivia, please. Collect (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not trivial; it's biographical. Adding content about Bush's "troubled" times at Phillips Academy is perfectly fine, and probably necessary per WP:NPOV , although it should be written in an encyclopedic tone. Here are some sources:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Perhaps someone would like to take a stab at adding a few sentences about this obviously notable material.- MrX 16:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's already content there: 'Following in the footsteps of his father and older brother George, Jeb attended high school at the Massachusetts boarding school Phillips Academy.[13] Though he received poor grades at first and occasionally smoked marijuana, Bush made the honor roll by the end of his senior year.'CFredkin (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is some content there, but it's rather poorly written. I would hope that we could come up with something a little better than a compliment sandwich. Also, I think it would be great if we could find sources to expand the early years section, as it's a little sparse. Unfortunately, my HighBeam subscription expired so I'm somewhat limited in what I would be able to find. When I have a chance I will try to come up something that might work better than the two sentences above.- MrX 18:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you consider a reliable source? Hcobb (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the source for the unredacted copies is ... the State of Florida. Bush released nothing not already available. [12] "Asked for comment, a Bush spokesperson Kristy Campbell said that the emails are an “exact replica” of those on public record that are available at the Florida Department of State and are “available at anyone’s request under Chapter 119 sunshine laws.”Collect (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually
"But some messages were personal appeals that included intimate details of people’s lives, medical and employment information, and even Social Security numbers – none of which were redacted, according to BuzzFeed News, which perused eight years’ worth of emails." — Christian Science Monitor
From CSM[13]: Indeed, most of Mr. Bush’s emails came with a disclaimer: “Most written communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.” due to Florida State law. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we stick to concise facts rather than selective quotes that simply make Bush appear righteous. By the way, the state does not bulk publish emails. Bush on the other hand did.- MrX 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this sentence notable? Seems trivial to me.--JOJHutton 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider the CSM fact to be an attempt to "make Bush appear righteous"? Or the simple statement of fact that people knew in advance that the emails were not secret? Collect (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care. Why is it notable? How does it add to the articles encyclopedic value?JOJHutton 00:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And roughly two thirds of the content now in our article attempts to excuse the release of the emails, while the weight given to this material in our sources is about one third. Also, writing that CSM "noted" is blatantly weasely. Thus, the POV tag.- MrX 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Noted" is not "weasel" when dealing with a statement of simple fact. In the case of the Christian Science Monitor, they have a very high reputation for statements of fact. If you did not feel so, you would have removed the very same source from the BLP already, I trust. Collect (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. In fact, it's one of the big, bold examples in WP:EDITORIALIZING. The word we should use is "stated" or "said" or "wrote". Better yet, we should leave the quote out altogether.- MrX 01:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Noted" is bad for opinions, good for facts. Change it to "stated" if you wish - seems ok either way from here. Collect (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's not neutral as it lends undue emphasis to what follows it.- MrX 02:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Riddle Me This, How does anything in that entire paragraph have anything to do about the section it is placed into? The section is labeled 2016 Presidential Election, but this has nothing to do with the election at all. Nor is any of it, and I'm talking about the entire paragraph, notable at all. Can anyone explain why this is notable?JOJHutton 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section is riddled with POV according to the tag. Dunno anything else. Collect (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that you don't know its notable? Why are you trying to add something to the article in which you have no idea it's notability?JOJHutton 01:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So? Why is it notable? Who cares why he did it. What lasting notability does it have to the man's entire life?--JOJHutton 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable because it's unprecedented, especially for a presidential candidate. Also because CNN, ABC, CSM, Yahoo, Huffington Post, Chicago Sun Times, Politico, USA Today, Minneapolis Star Tribune, MSNBC, New York Times, Tampa Bay Tribune, Slate, Breitbart, Chicago Daily Herald, International Business Times, Boomberg, NBC, Daily Mail, Newsweek, Time, The Atlantic, Washington Times and Washington Post thought it worthy of some ink.- MrX 02:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it state that its unprecedented? Is he the first person ever to release emails? Good Grief, this just looks like the normal Wikipedia build up to the elections to try and use Wikipedia to paint political candidates in certain lights. Sigh. But of course we all can't conveniently lose our emails, like the IRS did.--JOJHutton 03:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I had to treat it as "notable" because two editors pretty much insisted it was important. But in the great scheme of things, it is about as important as what Bush has for breakfast in the run-up to silly season. Collect (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, but more importantly, WP:DUEWEIGHT is determined by the extent of coverage in reliable source (please let me know if you disagree). I have listed a very large number of diverse sources that have covered this. I'm a little shocked that a release of 300,000 emails by U.S. presidential candidate and former governor is characterized as unimportant.- MrX 13:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse WP:NOTNEWS with WP:N and do many WP editors wishing to frame a political story. Hell, it is barely 2015 and the silly season crap has started already. Arzel (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would lead you believe that I'm "confused" about those two policies? Significant coverage in reliable sources has always been an inclusion criteria, regardless of the article subject or the season.- MrX 18:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that if something receives a bunch of news attention today that it will have some lasting notability. WP is not a newspaper and not everything that hits the news is worthy of a bio. As a potential presidential contender Bush is going to be in the news....a lot.... And to be sure, if there was not something for some people to whine about regarding his transparency this would have received no attention. Arzel (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 2015 Bush published the emails from his governorship online, exposing private details of employees and constituents. Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws, but may included unredacted personal details like social security numbers.[89][90][91]
was not as neutral as the current version. Collect (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It explains what happened, that the release was (probably) lawful, and that personal details were revealed. What more needs to be said?- MrX 01:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says "exposed", uses poor grammar, and the number of SSNs is unknown -- yet the implication is made that a great many had them and that they were not told the emails were public records. As the governor's Contact page explicitly tells people about the law, that omission is pretty bad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So change "exposing" to "revealing"; tweak the grammar; and leave the rest alone. " Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws," includes any disclosures on any state owned website. Mentioning that additional detail tips the POV scales way off balance.- MrX 01:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does the statement that these were public records under the sunshine law tip the POV scale way off balance? Arzel (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, I've proposed edits to address your concerns. I would like to get your further thoughts so we can work toward a compromise on the wording for this paragraph.- MrX 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current version seems neutrally written to me, except I don't believe it's accurate to say "many" emails included PII. Based on the sources, it seems more accurate to say that "some" of the emails included PII.CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the POV tag was inserted. I don't believe an argument has been made that the current language is POV.CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that the paragraph is undue. Perhaps the last sentence could be removed to address that?CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Quartz.com is a blog and not a reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question about why I inserted the POV tag:
In this article, 31 out of 126 words (more than 75%) present rebuttal to the thesis that releasing bulk emails is controversial. Less than 25% of the content is critical of the release. In the Christian Science Monitor article, 39% of the article is critical of the email release. As far as I can tell, most of the other sources are pretty equally balanced in this regard.
The use of the word "noted" is a EDITORIALIZING because it improperly emphasizes one aspect of the content ("Hey, reader look at this; this is what's really important")
Not NPOV related, but the content added by another editor is malformed. It includes extra white space, and curly quotes.
Not NPOV related, but the content added by another editor repeats that the emails are public records three times. Twice is redundant; three times is redundant redundant.
I agree that qz.com is not a good source. I had added a Tampa Bay Times article as a source, but for some reason it was removed.- MrX 19:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to propose the following language, which I think addresses Mr. X's concerns and also makes the amount of content more consistent with its importance in Bush's bio:
In February 2015 Bush released the emails from his governorship online. Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws, and some included personal details such as social security numbers, names and addresses, as well as the contents of the messages.CFredkin (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an excellent version. The only thing worth considering is that we might want to add a few words about "Mr Bush's campaign team moved to redact as much of the information as possible after the leaks came to light."[14][15].- MrX 22:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just removed the reference to "private" emails in my proposed version above (before I saw the previous post). I think it's debatable whether the messages could be considered private.CFredkin (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sub-headings in this section have the word "experience". I think this should be changed, it sounds a bit CV-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'm not sure what would work better. Perhaps 'Business', 'Lobbying', and 'Politics'?- MrX 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Business experience" and "Business and lobbying experience in Miami" sections could be combined and potentially just called "Business". Bush was never a registered lobbyist.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems like a good idea.- MrX 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that´s better. I looked at some other articles for comparison, (preceding/succeedeing governors, the presidents Bush, Mitt Romney), and I see no obvious "right" way. Those articles seem to confirm that "experience" is not right, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because Bush never served in Congress, he doesn't have a voting record that could be summarized to provide information about his positions on many policy questions. As he attracts more attention as a possible President, however, he will more and more be called upon to answer questions about matters that he didn't have to act on while Governor. (His recent speech about foreign policy is an example.) In addition, it's been some time since he left office, and changed circumstances plus the exigencies of the primary process may lead him to shift position even on some things that he did handle as Governor. Even where he hasn't changed, as in his opposition to marriage equality, there should be a place for advising readers of his current thoughts on the subject.
We could start a separate "Political positions" section. What strikes me as a better alternative is to make it a sub-sub-section under "2016 Presidential election". (If he stays in the race, the treatment of the 2016 campaign will probably become lengthy and will come out from under the "Post-governorship" heading.) JamesMLanetc 08:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could wait until there is concrete stuff to cite. Collect (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the Governor of Florida (1999–2007) section covers his political positions in practice. I think we would need to at least wait until Bush declares his candidacy before summarizing his political positions n a new section. For now, any major points could probably be included in the few paragraphs under 2016 presidential election. On that topic, shouldn't we remove 2012 presidential election? It's entirely speculation and reaction to speculation, and fairly trivial at this point.- MrX 13:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for "concrete stuff", I mentioned the example of his speech on foreign policy. Another example, the one that prompted me to think about it, was this article about his position on marriage equality (he's opposed). Some politicians have changed their minds on that score, so the reader couldn't assume that whatever Bush did as Governor several years ago is what he believes now (especially not on that subject). That he was considered a possible contender in 2012 is, I think, notable enough to mention; he's one of a handful out of more than 300 million Americans who commanded enough admiration and respect to attract that kind of attention. JamesMLanetc 08:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how Wikipedia works, sorry. But I noticed that any reference to this is now missing from the article. Must have happened within the past few weeks. Hopefully one of you sees me typing this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.7.86 (talk • contribs)
Adding redundant content as was done here and here is not justified and is WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC) This is also redundant; his stance on immigration is already discussed substantially in the article.CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no redundancy; the material is specifically about 2016 as stated in the source. The section is specifically about 2016 which needs to be flushed out per the tag; and please chill out on your reverts. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The content is indeed redundant as it's stated elsewhere in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by being related to 2016. How is that relevant?CFredkin (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD, please seek consensus here before continuing to restore your desired content.CFredkin (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, since you accuse me of whitewashing, I'll point out that in the last couple of days, you've been removing negative content from Elizabeth Warren and then coming here and persistently adding inflammatory (and redundant) content. Please refrain from POV pushing. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sure you're aware, when you make accusations against people you need to provide diffs; please provide diffs and explain why you think my edits are not in line with policy. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common Core
"Bush has been criticized by some in the Tea Party as not being sufficiently conservative, as he supports positions on immigration and Common Core that are unpopular with some conservatives."
"Bush's education foundation has advocated for the Common Core State Standards Initiative.[68] In October 2013, referring to opponents of the standards, Bush said that while "criticisms and conspiracy theories are easy attention grabbers", he instead wanted to hear their solutions to the problems in American education."CFredkin (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration
"In 2004, Bush supported an unsuccessful bill to allow illegal immigrants to be issued drivers licenses by the state."
"Bush has been criticized by some in the Tea Party as not being sufficiently conservative, as he supports positions on immigration and Common Core that are unpopular with some conservatives."
"In April 2013, Bush authored a cover story for Newsmax magazine, arguing that America's entitlement system risked collapse unless there was a course correction in U.S. public policy. Bush touted a six-point plan to restore growth to the economy, including a key plank calling for more legal immigration. "A growth agenda is inextricably linked with a welcoming immigration policy", he wrote."
"In April 2014, Bush called illegal immigration "an act of love" and "an act of commitment to your family"."CFredkin (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gay Rights
"Bush previously argued that gay individuals did not deserve special legal protection.[97] In 2015, he said that 'people should accept court rulings that legalize same-sex marriage and "show respect" for gays in committed relationships, while reiterating his long-held belief that "marriage is a sacrament"'"CFredkin (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Education section at 2016 political positions[edit]
User:CFredkin appears hellbent on removing well-sourced content that is specifically about Jeb's current political positions. I'm not going to edit-war with him but would appreciate another editor restoring the content. The first subsection he removed [16] is Education; here is the content:
(====Education====)
Bush is a strong advocate for Common Core, the education standards that are currently in place in 45 states.[1]
Please see section above on "Redundant Content" and statements regarding existing content in article that reflects Jeb's current political positions. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your "Redundant Content" section and it doesn't make sense. The reason it doesn't make sense is because all of that material falls under the Governor of Florida (1999–2007) section, which obviously ended in 2007 and is not current. I'd appreciate you restoring the content you removed instead of having to wait for another editor to do it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all (or even most) the content falls in the Governor of Florida section. Also, you've provided no information to indicate that it doesn't reflect his current position.CFredkin (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as Jeb's position on Gay Rights has evolved: (former)[17] -- (current)[18] -- the 2016 section of the article should clearly state what his current positions are, as documented in reliable sources. With that said, by looking at your recent reversions, such as your removal of this well-sourced material on gay rights[19] that was in the Governorship section, there appears to be something else going on here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you've provided no evidence that the content I listed in the Redundant Content section above does not reflect his current position. The fact that Jeb's position on Gay Rights has evolved is reflected in the subsection you added to the Political Positions section, which also reflects his current position on the subject. However the content I removed on Gay Rights from the Governor section is redundant and it also does not reflect his current position.CFredkin (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
Immigration section at 2016 political positions[edit]
Here is more well-sourced content that User:CFredkin removed [20] that is specifically about Jeb's current political positions; Immigration section:
Please see section above on "Redundant Content" and statements regarding existing content in article that reflects Jeb's current political positions. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your "Redundant Content" section and it doesn't make sense. The reason it doesn't make sense is because all of that material falls under the Governor of Florida (1999–2007) section, which obviously ended in 2007 and is not current. I'd appreciate you restoring the content you removed instead of having to wait for another editor to do it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all (or even most) the content falls in the Governor of Florida section. The fact that you keep making that claim (which is empirically false) is starting to seem a bit disingenuous. Also, you've provided absolutely no information to indicate that the content I listed in the Redundant Content section doesn't reflect his current position.CFredkin (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
Gay rights - Governor of Florida (1999–2007)[edit]
(===Gay rights===)
Bush argued against legal protections based on sexual orientation.[1] In 2004 he wrote that "The public policy question is whether homosexuals deserve special legal protection…, or, to put it another way, should sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion? My answer is No. We have enough special categories, enough victims, without creating even more."[1]
Per WP:Weight, the Governor of Florida (1999–2007) part of this article should have a section on Gay rights and the material is well-sourced (The Christian Science Monitor). Input needed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section in the article is based on his actions as governor, not a collection of statements he made. This topic is more appropriately addressed in the article on his political positions.CFredkin (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keeping this content, or something that properly summarizes his public position on LGBT rights. His own words are clear and unequivocal, so it's hard to see how we could better represent his own political views on the matter.- MrX 20:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User: MrX, can you please explain how the content you reverted here is not an accurate representation of the source?Eeyoresdream (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly
"During his time as governor and afterward, Bush has supported the reduction of taxes and government spending, advocated for education reform, and opposed abortion, affirmative action, and gun control." — Your edit
"He cut billions in taxes, intervened in controversial abortion cases, railed against affirmative action and gun control and dreamed of a state capital in which government buildings would forever be drained of unneeded workers." — CNN
"Not only did he advocate for abolishing the Department of Education, for voter approval of all new taxes, and "privatization in every area where privatization is possible," he also suggested welfare reforms that would have cut recipients' access to benefits after two years. ¶ His 1994 pronouncements on gay rights haunt his image to this day.. ¶ Bush's abortion activism shocked some state officials who believed he was reaching beyond the powers of his office.: — CNN
So, my issues with this is that there is no mention of his views on LGBT rights, privatization, and welfare reform. We understate his postion on abortion and education. If we are to summarize his political positions, we should use at least a few sources, and present everything in a more nuanced fashion. I don't think that simply listing what he supports or opposes does our readers much good, and it tends to treat each item with equal weight, which it shouldn't.- MrX 20:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure I agree that multiple sources are required. Also all of the Political Positions sections I've seen seem to be listings of what the person supports and opposes with equal weight given to all. In this case, I've included the items that were listed in the intro paragraph of the sourced CNN article under the assumption that they would be the most important. Also, those items all seem to be the one's most commonly mentioned with respect to Bush in my experience.
In any case, I don't recall seeing a dedicated section for a link that simply redirects to another article in other articles on the site. In the meantime, I'm going to move the link to the 2016 Campaign section. If that's not acceptable, I suppose a Further Reading section could be created and the link could be located there.Eeyoresdream (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this section should be a cherry picked collection of issues. Instead, I think the "Impact on political party" section could instead be re-purposed for this section.CFredkin (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current picture is recent, but it is a bit fuzzy and blurry, and could have better lighting. The below picture is from teh same event, but better lighting, focus, and composition. Plus, since the current picture isn't an official portrait, an action (mid-speech) shot doesn't seem inappropriate. Spartan7W§ 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, I don't think the proposed image is an improvement over the current portrait.Eeyoresdream (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have the most current picture possible. Jeb has been dropping weight and has lost the chin from CPAC. I also believe Jeb Bush should decide which picture depicts himself IMHO. This should not be about photographers. Its not about Gage or myself. Its about accurately depicting Jeb in a flattering manner. Gages picture is not how Jeb appears today. Gages picture depicts a chunky Jeb and thats not how Jeb looks currently. Jeb has lost about 30 lbs and has lost the chin. Signed Michael Vadon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:334:9F85:0:49:1607:CF01 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUMMARY, given that we have an article on Political positions of Jeb Bush, the section about that subject needs to be an harmomized short summary of the main article. We also should avoid repeating content in previous sections related to the different political positions Bush took while governor of Florida. - Cwobeel(talk) 00:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been discussion on this topic. Pls see section above for historical input.CFredkin (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I tend to agree with Mr. X in his input there. I don't believe this section should be a cherry picked collection of issues. Instead, I think the "Impact on political party" section could instead be re-purposed for this section. This seems to be the approach taken for this section at Hillary Clinton.CFredkin (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:SUMMARY. We can't making things up, as we have an article on his political positions, and in that case, we summarize, not re-invent. If you have concerns about the Hillary Clinton article, bring it up there, not here. And, before I forget, remember that editwarring does not really work. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing that we "make things up". I'm proposing that we provide a summary of his political positions using sourced content, rather than repeating content from Political positions of Jeb Bush.CFredkin (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I don't have a problem with the summary at Hillary Clinton, I'm proposing that we take the same approach here.CFredkin (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specifically proposing that we re-purpose the following content as the Political Positions summary:
As of 2002, American conservatives appeared to be positive about Bush, seeing him as committed to upholding core conservative principles.[71] Outside of Florida, fellow Republican leaders throughout the country have sought Bush's aid both on and off the campaign trail. Bush's out-of-state campaign visits include Kentucky, where Republican challenger Ernie Fletcher appeared with Bush and won that state's governorship in 2003,[72] ending a 32-year streak of Democratic governors.
Bush has been criticized by some in the Tea Party as not being sufficiently conservative, as he supports positions on immigration and Common Core that are unpopular with some conservatives.[73] Bush publicly criticized the national Republican party for its adherence to "an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement" on June 11, 2012. In comments shared with Bloomberg View, Bush suggested that former Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would "have had a hard time" finding support in the contemporary GOP.[74]CFredkin (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
What you are saying does not make sense whatsoever. The article Political positions of Jeb Bush is fully sourced, so why not summarize it? Are you arguing for different content than what is in that article? If so, fix that article and summarize here better than it was before. But deleting well sourced content, just because you don't like it is akin to vandalism. The summary you suggest is unacceptable as it has completely different content than the main article on the subject. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a revised proposal to use the "Background" section from Political positions of Jeb Bush as the summary for the "Political Positions" section here:
According to political scientist Susan MacManus from the University of South Florida, "In Florida, he’s <Bush> still perceived as conservative, especially on fiscal issues and even on social issues."[1]
He has been criticized by some Tea Party members as not being sufficiently conservative, as he supports positions on immigration and Common Core that are unpopular with some conservatives.[2]
RfC: Should the article Political positions of Jeb Bush be summarized in this article?[edit]
Withdrawn to allow for merger discussion - Cwobeel(talk) 17:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support - Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SYNC we ought to summarize and harmonize the main article in a section here. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support somewhat, but only to the extent that it's not redundant to what's already in other sections of this article (like the section on his governorship), and therefore this might get a little difficult to do properly. Also, I have no opinion yet about whether the political positions article needs to be revised, in which case the summary would have to be revised too. Additionally, we may want to learn how this summarization is done at other articles like Hillary Clinton's, given that summarizing could hypothrtically be done at different levels of detail. And I emphatically oppose trying to convert this RFC into some sort of merger discussion midstream.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rather than cherry-picking content from Political positions of Jeb Bush for repetition in his bio, I'm proposing that we provide a summary of Bush's political positions similar to the approach taken at Hillary Clinton. Specifically I'm proposing some version of the following:
As of 2002, American conservatives appeared to be positive about Bush, seeing him as committed to upholding core conservative principles.[71] More recently, Bush has been criticized by some in the Tea Party as not being sufficiently conservative, as he supports positions on immigration and Common Core that are unpopular with some conservatives.[73] Bush publicly criticized the national Republican party for its adherence to "an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement" on June 11, 2012. In comments shared with Bloomberg View, Bush suggested that former Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would "have had a hard time" finding support in the contemporary GOP.[74]CFredkin (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No one is asking for cherry picking or for repetition. I am asking for a summary merge, which is the correct way to do this. The comparison with Hillary Clinton is not symmetric. We have Hillary Clinton at 14,764 words and Political positions of Hillary Clinton at 10,828 words, while we have Jeb Bush at 4,827 words and Political positions of Jeb Bush at 1,165 words. Huge difference. The constraints at both articles are very different, and this means that we can merge the entire article on political positions here and be done with it. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel, merging and summarizing are totally different. Merging means deleting that article and putting it all in here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing merging and redirecting, not deleting. And that is a valid proposal, given that this article is a mere 4,800 words and the positions article is 1,100 words. Not an issue. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is utterly nuts. You start out advocating summarizing the subarticle, and now you instead want to get rid of the sub-article? That is utterly absurd and I emphatically OPPOSE. Why start the above RFC if you don't want anything summarized? Obviously the subarticle will increase in size, and the only reason it exists now is because it's too big to include in this article without undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight, are you kidding me? The political positions of a presidential candidate is not undue weight. It is encyclopedic. Maybe nuts for you, but not for me. I came to the understanding that a merge is a better way forward after being asked by another editor to compare with the article on Hillary Clinton and realizing the asymmetry in the length of the material in these articles. So, the RFC can be answered for either a summary of the main article, a new summary, or a merge. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The guy just announced for president today, and you're proposing to get rid of the political positions article which is just about to get a lot of attention and expansion, just like this article is. Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Let us hear from other editors in response to the RFC, and please refrain from refactoring my edits. Thanks. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think we're going to run into this issue eventually regardless. Rather than merging now and then separating out again later, we might as well try to reach consensus on the best way to summarize now.CFredkin (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel, there is no "Merger proposal" in the headings, and no "merger proposal" in the table of contents. When people click at the top of the article to discuss a merger proposal, how are they supposed to figure out where to go? As I said, you are violating the instructions at WP:Merge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cwobeel, I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I believe the Merger tag should be removed if there's no specific proposal or section here on the subject.CFredkin (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing is different from merging. If the child article is not to be deleted or redirected here, then a merge proposal tag should not appear on this article. --NeilNtalk to me 16:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not ideal, but the RFC can also conclude in consensus for a merge, so no harm done. I re-added the mergeto template to the other article (I added it before, but it was removed). - Cwobeel(talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever is tasked to figure out consensus (I'm not volunteering!) is going to have a heck of time evaluating two discussions. I would just withdraw the RFC and have one discussion. --NeilNtalk to me 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is messy, I agree. Not sure if an RFC can be withdrawn. How do we go about doing that? - Cwobeel(talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Not sure if this is the correct way... - Cwobeel(talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger, and oppose mixing that proposal with an RFC that didn't pose the issue. For reasons explained above in the previous subsection, moving the material in the political positions subarticle would create undue weight here, and would prevent summarization with due weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js, the readable prose of the political positions section would become about 37% of the size of this article. In contrast, the current political positions section in the Hillary Clinton article is about 2%.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No possible comparison with this pair of articles. We have Hillary Clinton at 14,764 words and Political positions of Hillary Clinton at 10,828 words, big difference. - Cwobeel(talk) 18:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No UNDUE weight as this is an article about a politician, You may want to read what WP:UNDUE says. A better comparison would be Ted Cruz, which has political positions section.- Cwobeel(talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of WP:UNDUE: Avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. This does not apply here. - Cwobeel(talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course WP:UNDUE applies to politicians, but here we are taking about his positions, not viewpoints contradicting his positions or minority viewpoints ... that is unless you consider Bush positions to be minority positions... which will be nuts. - Cwobeel(talk) 19:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 31kb of readable prose, this article is not so short that length alone justifies combining articles. The article just became a lot more notable yesterday, and so it will be increasing in size very soon, just like the subarticle already has in the past 24 hours. You haven't indicated why it's so important to merge that sub-article rather than, for example, Jeb_Bush_presidential_campaign,_2016.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Jgoley (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging - I think it is a stupid thing to do. I also think that the comparison between H.C and J.B. doesn't make much sense. They are two diff. politicians, a lot of variables... (I don't know J. Bush very well but I know that H.C. flip-flops a lot, so this could be an explanation for the differences in article-size.). --Mr.PseudoDon't talk to me 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm inclined to support this because the size of the main biography doesn't seem to justify the fork. Personally, I (and I imagine other readers) would find it useful to read about Bush and his political views in one place, without having to go back and forth between articles to compare his current political views with his past political actions. At present, Bush's political views are fairly boilerplate, and if we trimmed some of the redundant material and Bush quotes, they would fit nicely in this article. In particular, his musings on foreign policy could be trimmed significantly. As far as that goes, his biography could probably use some trimming as well.- MrX 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. The Political positions of Jeb Bush article has undergone significant expansion in the last 24 hours (and appears likely to continue to do so). At this point, I think it's a reasonable standalone article.CFredkin (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's unclear what you mean by "I will strongly oppose a re-write...." You mean that you oppose revising what has not yet been written? Please clarify. Additionally, we need to figure out how we want to do this. One option is to only summarize his positions as they stand now in 2015, without summarizing positions that are now older or obsolete. Another option is to summarize the positions as they stand now, plus a higher-level summary of past positions along the lines of the Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and John McCain articles (e.g. ratings without specific positions).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by a "re-write" is to have a political positions section that is not a summary of the sub-article. - Cwobeel(talk) 03:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After further consideration, I think the current version is pretty good. I'm not crazy about interest group ratings because the methodology for determining them can be obscure. Also, I believe ratings are more difficult to develop for governors since they don't vote on issues as legislation like Congressmen do. My biggest concern is that the section not creep up over time to essentially replicate the Political Positions article as editors add their favorite issues.CFredkin (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it is far from good. We need a summary of Immigration, Healthcare and other core topics. - Cwobeel(talk) 03:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking past each there here. Cwobeel, I still do not understand what you mean by saying that you will strongly oppose a political positions section that is not a summary of the sub-article. Has anyone suggested that we should have a political positions section that is not a summary of the sub-article? I do not understand why anyone would suggest that. Moreover, I said above that we need to figure out how we want to do this. One option is to only summarize his positions as they stand now in 2015, without summarizing positions that are now older or obsolete. Another option is to summarize the positions as they stand now, plus a higher-level summary of past positions along the lines of the Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and John McCain articles (e.g. ratings without specific positions). Do you have an opinion about that? I am leaning toward only summarizing political positions that are current. If people want older stuff, they can look at his policies in the governor section of this article, or look at the evolution information at the main article. How's that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: I have made my position very clear, the political positions section has to be a summary of the sub article, following the guidelines of WP:SUMMARY. Also, I don;t understand why did you moved the political positions section after the Campaign section, when his political positions predates the campaign. Check other articles to see how it's been done, and play nicely. We are doing not bad so far. - Cwobeel(talk) 03:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, position statements made during this election season do not pre-date the election season. Additionally, the best way to summarize the sub-article is to summarize positions that he is now running on. If people want to know previous positions they can look in the goveror section and/or look at the details of the main article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a political pamphlet for voters - See WP:ADVOCACY. This is an encyclopedic article about Jeb Bush - Cwobeel(talk) 04:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't. But that does not mean we should not characterize his present positions, just as the governor section characterizes past positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section looks pretty good now, it can do with some trimming here ad there, and adding some other missing pieces, though. I have removed the {{sync}} tag for now. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The political positions section needs to be before the presidential campaign section, as it is done in all other articles. If you think about it, his presidentian campaign just started yesterday, while his political positions have been set before that day. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Hillary Clinton, for example, is a featured article, and the "2016 presidential campaign" section comes before the "Political positions" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say, that even with strong disagreements, we have managed to collaboratively improve this article. It is messy, but it works at the end. Kudos to all and thanks for your patience. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article is definitely improved.CFredkin (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of his positions as governor are already summarized in the governor section. Since we cannot put everything from the subarticle into the political positions section of this article, I suggest that we focus on 2015 positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly his current positions should be included, but if there are notable shifts over time, we certainly should include those as well. We explain in Barack_Obama#LGBT_Rights his evolution on marriage over time. Neutralitytalk 05:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sure would make things simpler if we could follow the order of subjects in the main article, as listed in the table of contents there. Are we just picking and choosing issues from there to discuss here? Incidentally, Neutrality, since you mentioned the Obama article, do you know why it does not include any "political positions" section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should avoid comparing apples to oranges. Obama is a two term president, and thus has many subarticles. If we have to compare, we should do that with other republican candidates of similar standing. - Cwobeel(talk) 14:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position before giving a chronological discussion of how that position may have evolved or changed over the years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason there is objection to including a smiling photo as the main infobox image under claim that it is somehow "out of focus," and because a more recent image is available. For one I disagree that it is out of focus, second the photo that is replacing it is only a few months newer. I'm not aware of any policy that specifically states the newest image must be used, I've always been under the assumption that the photo that best illustrates someone would be the preferred photo, as long as it is accurate and not especially unflattering. The photo that is being used to replace the original photo also has an expression that exhibits anger, and is somewhat unflattering, in my opinion. I am not a supporter of his, but I think there may be some editor bias involved. Would like to seek some sort of consensus. Calibrador (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first photo is the best. I'm for it. I made the changes again. --Mr.PseudoDon't talk to me 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Your for it!
@Calibrador: The smiling photo is not "somewhat out of focus", it's out of focus. While the smile is perhaps desirable, the eyes are very obscured, the skin tones ashen, the overall contrast is flat, and it's a somewhat older photo. The "Other photo" has superior technical quality and conveys a sense of a dynamic orator in my opinion. I really don't see anger at all, but I will admit that there are some politician photos that do convey anger. "A challenger appears" would be my second choice, by a narrow margin.- MrX 13:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other photo would be my choice. - Cwobeel(talk) 14:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until more photos become available, I agree with MrX and Cwobeel that "other photo" is okay. I've also added an "FITN" photo which would be my second choice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it odd that he looks different in every pic even though they were all taken this year?, the 4th one i added, he looks a lot like his brother, the first one, he looks a bit young (hair/face) even though 1 and 4 are from the same event (photoshop much in pic 1?), he looks OK in the 2nd pic but much older in the 3rd pic..--Stemoc 16:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's all make sure to edit war over it, because you know...that's the best way to resolve things arounds here. Uhg. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Calibrador:@Anythingyouwant:@MrX:@Mr. Pseudo:@MichaelVadon:@CFredkin:
And now we have another reversion. If the edit war doesn't stop, I'll request full protection of the page until it's sorted out here on the talk page. Now that he is a candidate, this is a high visibility page. With the announcement, traffic on this page spiked seven-fold [21]. This needs to end. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And another reversion while I was writing this! STOP! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with 1 (Smiling photo), 2 (Other photo), or 4 (Man with many faces).CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming silly. No more picture swaps please! - Cwobeel(talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe there is an "Edit War". That phrase sounds very negative and suggests animosity amongst the contributors. However, I do believe there is a difference in opinion as to which photo is displayed of Jeb Bush. My opinion is that the most current flattering picture of Jeb should be posted. Keep in mind, Jeb has been dieting and working out hard so his appearance will change as we get closer to the end of the year. By the time of the primaries, more photos will be uploaded. Therefore, its to be expected the info box picture will change. I personally do not care whose picture gets displayed whether its taken by me, Gage or another photographer. I want the best picture possible for each candidate which depicts them accurately and in a flattering manner.
In regards to a smiling Jeb, I feel certain the "nice guy" look is not what most Americans want in a President. I believe they want someone who looks a bit more tough and firm. Someone who will make the hard decisions. The smiling Jeb might be better for pictures throughout the article, but may not be best as the main picture.
Thanks again everyone for your input and contributions.
(pinging two more to this conversation who commented about photos above: @Spartan7W:@Eeyoresdream:)
Ok, polls suck. I get that. But, we need a decision. Please rank your top three choices of the following:
--Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image 1 Smiling photo (Feb. 27, 2015)
Image 2 Other photo (May 22, 2015).
Image 3 A challenger appears (June 16, 2015).
Image 4 A man with many faces (Feb. 27, 2015).
Image 5 FITN photo (April 17, 2015)
Image 6 Late entry photo (May 22, 2015; added to poll June 21)
Image 7 June 2015 (added to poll June 23)
File:
Example vote: I vote Image 2, Image 4, Image 5 in that order. --John Doe 00:00 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Polls are actually a great way to arrive at consensus for something as subjective as this. I vote Image 2, Image 3, Image 7 in that order.- MrX 19:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image 7; Image 2; Image 3 would be best at the top, in that order.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image 3 (taken 4 days ago); Image 4(unshooped version of Image 1); no third option. --Stemoc 01:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image 2 is the best choice; good lighting, neutral expression, doesn't look weird at all. Image 1 and then Image 4 come after, mostly due to good lighting. All the rest of serious lighting issues. ~ RobTalk 18:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right! I'm therefore am going to exercise my powers as dictator for life, and decide which image will go into the infobox. Nobody is allowed to disagree :) More seriously...there was an ongoing edit war over the infobox image. Minus one addition/revert, the edit war was halted in its tracks by this poll. I'll take it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take your brawl elsewhere. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article.- MrX 14:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time.--Stemoc 10:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, the images are on a free licence so it can and will be uploaded by anyone when and if there is a need, if you have a problem with that, change the licence but at the same time, stop uploading your images to wikimedia commons cause that would be a violation of uploading copyrighted images..WP:Civility goes both ways, plus I'm not the one violating WP:Ownership of articles or making WP:Disruptive editing or definitely not WP:Wikihounding, please learn those policies before you talk about them again..--Stemoc 13:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's really just laughable at this point. Anyone reading this conversation can see who the civil person is. Calibrador (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
B A similar poll has been posted at Talk:Mike Huckabee#Poll. Interested users are invited to participate.- MrX 17:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This poll has been overtaken by new images. If anyone wants to re-start the poll, then we could ping the people who participated, but I think the status quo is acceptable for now without re-starting the poll.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image that has been atop this article since 22 June (called "jebcropped") was removed today.[22] I will restore it because no one at this talk page has disagreed (with my assessment above on 27 June) that the poll above has been overtaken by additional images. Indeed, only two editors were involved in the poll above, between addition of the "jebcropped" image to the poll on June 23 and my assessment on June 27. Instead, people have continued commenting in the subsections below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was again removed, and I have again restored it. It is a good image, it is vertically oriented so you get a better view without zooming, good color, more natural, candid composition Spartan7W§ 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your personal opinion doesn't trump consensus, no matter how "good" you think the image is. Is there some interpretation of the above poll or the RfC below that would lead you to conclude that anything other than the current image has the support of more editors than any other image? Why would we want to put an image that is supported by a small minority of editors in the lead of a prominent article such as this?- MrX 03:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a newly available image that looks like an improvement. The composition looks very professional, the expression appears more upbeat, and the person looks more recognizable.
I disagree that this is better. He's staring off in to space. You were not supposed to restore it in the midst of a poll. It's disruptive.- MrX 22:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's disruptive to restore what seems like a very good new photo. I also think it's legitimate to ask you, MrX, whether you are trying to make Republican candidates look as angry as possible, as you previously indicated. The photo that I restored appears less angry. Also, the photo that you're now saying ought to be put back showed the subject looking somewhere other than into the camera, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. Enough of that nonsense; it is disruptive. - Cwobeel(talk) 22:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image 3 above is taken from the same time, a few minutes after perhaps which i cropped into a portrait..the only thing wrong with image 3 is that its a bit too dark, so anyone that is good at fixing those type of problem could try and fix it..its probably the only image of his which is "sincere" and looks a lot like him (his hair keeps changing a lot) ..--Stemoc 00:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 3 is a good image. Let me see if I can adjust it a bit.- MrX 01:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: I find it rather offensive that you would think I am trying to make Republican candidates look as angry as possible. My reasons for favoring the photos I chose are based entirely on lighting, posing and image quality.- MrX 01:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People can look at the link I provided above, and see that you described an image as "angry" here at this talk page, and then inserted it into the corresponding article, which I thought was peculiar. I always assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary, and am happy to consider any explanation. As for Image 3, it does not look angry, but rather looks goofy, in my opinion. If a photo makes a BLP subject look angry or goofy, that is a reason to exclude it, even if the image has excellent lighting and image quality, and even if the subject's position is optimal. Considering only lighting, image quality, and position is insufficient, and is apt to result in BLP photos that are angry, goofy, or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until a newer, portrait-quality photo comes about (see Carly Fiorina, not a portrait, but of the same quality and characteristics), this one is best. Others are unnatural smiles, bad angles, or jaw in mid-speaking position. This is natural, and it looks like him. Campaigns should publish free-use portraits for wikipedia... Spartan7W§ 04:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took the original file, cropped, and rotated. Got a very good portrait out of it. Spartan7W§ 04:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I can guarantee with 100% certainty there will be numerous new pictures of Jeb Bush in the future AND many other of the various candidates as well. So I think that InfoBox picture will be changing frequently as they get uploaded to WikiMedia and Flickr. I do know that Jeb is really dieting right now and getting into fighting shape. MichaelVadon (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I have my own category on Wikimedia which is the following https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Michael_Vadon and you can also look me up on Flickr to find additional current photos of many of the candidates. Also look me up on Flickr, Google Michael Vadon Flickr, for additional photos. My Jeb Bush photos are 21 megapixel from the 5D Mark III with professional lenses and so you can crop them nicely. There will be more! Most certainly coming in the future. MichaelVadon (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present picture actually serves quite well. The above is okay, but the open mouth looks like mid-speaking and somewhat unnatural. The present is a natural smile, relaxed appearance. With my crop and rotate it looks pretty good. See Carly Fiorina for what the a very good candid portrait image looks like. Lets wait for that. Spartan7W§ 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take a look at my Flickr page and grab what you want. I have lots of Jeb Bush pictures in the various albums. Im not sure how it works here with the Wikimedia Commons, etc. I do know I have more pictures of Jeb on Flickr than what I see here in the gallery. I have uploaded some 800+ pictures to the commons and more to the Flickr. MichaelVadon (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows the right pronunciation of "Jeb"? Please fill it into the article! Thanks! --Kychot (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. It's a one-syllable word that rhymes with web. The E is the same as in bed, led, dred, bred, etc. The J sounds like J in jam. The B sounds like B in boy. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A is clearly preferred by a concensus. Lucutious (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the following two images would be better at the top?
Image A in case someone tries to use the "survey" to determine consensus, but see my comments below. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC question does not involve any previous survey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image B. The face or eyes look toward the text, unlike in Image A. Additionally, readers expect to see someone who is recognizably Jeb Bush, and I don't think Image A is very recognizable. Neither of the facial expressions would be unexpected, nor is the lighting in either image unexpectedly dim, though admittedly Image B has less lighting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A strikes me as more representative of how he usually looks. I'm a bit befuddled by the statement that B is more recognizably Jeb Bush -- it definitely isn't; I don't think I would have recognized it as him if I'd seen it without context. --Aquillion (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A - summoned by bot - lighting better, and more representative of appearance. Flat Out (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A - It's a flattering shot that's still neutral. It also has better lighting than Image B. I don't understand why Jeb needs to be looking at the article. Macrowriter (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's technically policy as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, but the policy is worded more as a decision factor when all else is equal and you're simply deciding which side to place a regular image in an article. ~ RobTalk 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A - Both images seem OK, but the lighting in B seems a little poor. NickCT (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A, as I indicated in the previous poll. The image has better, albeit somewhat flat, lighting. The visual contrast between the subject and background makes for a stronger image. The subject is dressed as one would expect for US politician. The image is more recognizable as Jeb Bush than the alternative, and I say this as someone who has seen him from a distance of a few feet, although it was three years ago. I find that image A is superior in terms of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE and WP:LEADIMAGE.- MrX 16:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image B, The previous poll did not address image B, as it showed up after the last vote was cast. It is preferred policy for images to face the text, Image A faces away. Furthermore, Image B is a good, natural shot, it is of good quality. The other is mid-speech, his mouth is open but not smiling, it isn't a very flattering image.Spartan7W§ 03:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A - summoned by bot. Neither image is great, but Image B has harsh lighting and is more unflattering.—МандичкаYO 😜 00:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image 1 from above is WAY better than any others, just needs to be cropped. I can't understand why it's not an option. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an option in this RFC because it didn't get much support in the previous survey. This RFC is kind of a runoff between the leading image from the survey, and a newer image that became available after the survey was mostly done. Anyway, it's looking right now like the leading image from the survey will remain at the top of the article. We can consider more images as they become available.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should have been an RFC to choose from ALL the images. Out of protest, I support neither :-) —МандичкаYO 😜 03:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when more images become available, maybe we can put them together with the ones above, and have a huge RFC about all of them together. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A Summoned by bot. A seems more appropriate to the subject matter. Image B seems a bit distorted somehow, too smiley, poorly lit. Coretheapple (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A Summoned by bot. It comes down to personal taste, given extensive comments either way exposed above. Image A appears more formal, and is thus my personal choice. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A Purely my opinion, nothing more. Lighting looks better maybe? Not a photo expert by any mean but I'd say go with A. Cheers ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro 03:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A, better lightening.--Polmandc (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A appears to have better lighting and seems more formal. Fraulein451 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A, because it has better lighting, and is more recognizable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A: Agree with above reasons. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image A: Summonsed by a bot. Seems like this image is most consistent with the images generally appearing in the news. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image B is definitely happier and more relaxed, whereas Image A is strong and emphatic. Image B is more recognizably Jeb Bush, whereas Image A would be looking away rather than toward the article text. Image B was at the article top from June 22 to today. There was a survey above about images showing most support for Image A, but Image B only became available after most people !voted. An administrator at WP:ANI suggested that we conduct an RFC, so here it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not concerned with making a politician look strong, emphatic, happy, or relaxed. Attempting to choose a picture that displays a politician as strong, for instance, is extremely non-neutral. Image B has horrible lighting, with the left side of his face much darker than the right side of his face. Image A has perfect lighting and clearly shows his face. Image A is the better choice if we're only looking to find a high quality encyclopedic image, which is exactly what we're trying to do. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSIMAGES: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text.". This clearly favors Image B. Per WP:LeadImage, "Editors should avoid using [lead],images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page....[It] should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." This also favors Image B because readers expect to see someone who is recognizably Jeb Bush. Moreover, images that make the subject look goofy or awkward or angry or various other unexpected things would be deprecated, but these two images have rather usual facial expressions (smiling and relaxed, or emphatic and strong), so they are both acceptable in that regard. I don't think the lighting in either image would be unexpected, though it is true that Image A has more lighting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping Image A achieves WP:MOSIMAGES and I still don't know what you mean by "recognizably Jeb Bush". They're both pictures of Jeb Bush's face, and are both recognizably Jeb Bush. Both images are recent, and in both it's clear that it's him. ~ RobTalk 20:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping is sometimes suggested, but (per WP:MOSIMAGES) "images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer...." As for recognizability, sometimes a photo of a person just doesn't look like them or looks like someone else, because of the angle or the facial expression or whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either picture looks particularly more Jeb Bush-like than the other, but Image A does more clearly show a greater percentage of his face, and has a more neutral facial expression and more natural-looking lighting. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the picture JebBush.jpg (see thumbnail ->) suggested by Triggerhippie4 near the bottom of the above section meets all of those parameters better than either of the suggested photos in this RfC while looking sufficiently Jeb Bush-like, IMO. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that one, although I think the lighting is still better in A. That's much closer than B, though. Keep in mind A can be flipped to look towards the text easily enough. ~ RobTalk 20:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support that one, because readers will be expecting a formal photo wearing a jacket, rather than something informal for the lead image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on these issues is biased. I love all my photos! I think the top image will be changing constantly and, like I said, my plans are to upload a lot more Jeb Bush photos before they year is out. Check out my Flickr account for more photos. I did just upload a ton more 50 megapixel images of Jeb meaning you can do a mighty crop and still end up with a good image. Good luck deciding! Like I said, Im biased. I love my own photos! Many regards, Michael Vadon MichaelVadon (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There appears to be a large gap in the text of the "Political Positions" section. Anyone know how to fix that?CFredkin (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CFredkin: I'm not seeing a large gap. What browser are you running? Could you possibly take a screenshot of what it looks like for you, upload it to a website such as Imgur, and link it? ~ RobTalk 08:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently using IE 11.0.14. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to make the wording regarding net neutrality more neutral, but was reverted. See [23]. "Opponent" is a somewhat negative word when applied to politics, which is why I originally rephrased this with more detail and without "opponent". Looking at this closer now, though, the source does not support the sweeping statement that he opposes or is against net neutrality as a concept; it only says that he opposes the specific regulations from the FCC, which my version made clear. I'm somewhat close to/opinionated about net neutrality as a concept, in the interests of full disclosure. Thoughts on this? Pinging MrX. ~ RobTalk 13:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015[edit]
This edit request to Jeb Bush has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Yes, I know, the change sounds subtle. But if you really think about it, "Path Not Taken" is biased/melodramatic. It's practically ripping off Robert Frost!
Robert Frost can jump in a lake....covered in downy flake. There is no mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP that the section heading is overly poetic, personally, but I don't know that I can think of a better alternative. "Untaken path" is similarly vague/poetic. I question whether we need a section devoted to things Bush didn't do at all. The only thing particularly noteworthy in the section is the NFL bit, which can be moved elsewhere. ~ RobTalk 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be changed, but "Untaken path(s)" doesn't seem much better. Maybe it would be best to merge the content chronologically into the previous section.- MrX 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Basically, I agree with Rob.- MrX 15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the section would be fine with me. It's all pretty trivial, including the NFL thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MrX went ahead and removed the section, which I think is a solid removal. I've replaced the NFL information in the "Post-governorship/Political interests and business activities" section because I think the news coverage shows that this was a noteworthy happening. Additionally, this goes beyond mere speculation, because Bush confirmed that he was approached by someone connected to the NFL. This is definitely borderline, but I think there's enough here to merit a brief mention. I'm happy to discuss whether it should be removed for good if others disagree. ~ RobTalk 04:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm good with that.- MrX 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph[edit]
And now today a new edit war has erupted over which image should be in the infobox of this page. Facepalm When does this end? Shall we start yet another RfC? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a photo is new, and wasn't available at the time of the RFC, it can be added w/o consensus. However, this image was around long before the RFC, in relative terms, and thus, is negated by the RFC. If we have an August photo, of superior quality, it can be kept w/o RFC. Spartan7W§ 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Superior" is entirely subjective, and likely to lead to an edit war. Given the presence of the RfC, changing it yet again with a new image is highly likely to lead to an edit war. Any such change should be discussed first. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an image arose like the one being used for Hillary Clinton on campaign pages, I think there wouldn't be any rational objection. Spartan7W§ 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The present image is better. Readers would not expect to see a picture in which his eyes are peering off to our right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the current image does just that, while the face is not straight and he is in mid-sentence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the present stable top image, he's looking in the direction his head is facing. Here, he's peering off in a different direction, which would be unexpected in a top image. Plus his shoulders are very uneven.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that matter? The human eyes and face do not necessarily have to be in unison.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because they are almost always in unison in a portrait. See shifty-eyed pictures. And uneven shoulders gives the impression of poor posture, which is also unusual in a portrait. Plus I agree with Mr. X,s comments below about skin tone, image sharpness, and background.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The face might be straighter, but the shoulders are canted. I.e., I don't think it matters one way or the other. Doesn't seem like a criteria to pick one over the other. Now, if the entire image were tilted, that's a photo editing job. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the current image. However, the proposed is not of natural expression, he looks tense and unflattering. Let's wait for a superior portrait-quality candid. Spartan7W§ 16:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The proposed image is of inferior quality. The eyes are obscured by shadow, the skin tone is ashen, the image lacks sharpness, and the contrast/separation with the background is poor. - MrX 17:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per MrX. I found a photo from this month. I think it's good, but just throwing it out there. It is used in the 2016 presidential election to represent Bush. Just a thought. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eligible Voter Purging aka Grand Theft America[edit]
Why is there absolutely no mention on this page of the 2000 voter purging scandal? The criteria used to disenfranchise eligible voters(possibly illegally?) was chosen by Top Florida Republicans like Jeb Bush, his appointments and allies like Katherine Harris and Clay Roberts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint#Florida_voter_file_contract For a criminal act that had prompted a Special Congressional hearing as well as incriminating testimony before the "U.S. Commission on Civil Rights" an act whose effects on vote tallies decided how the Florida electors would vote and ultimately who "Won" the Presidency in 2000. I find it highly peculiar(Whitewash!) that the only significant mention of this controversy on wikipedia these days is on an article of a company few have ever heard of, will ever hear of or will ever bother to check out. How could this not be noteworthy enough for in-depth inclusion? it should be on GWB's, Jeb's, Harris' and Roberts' articles
207.126.196.16 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources that state that Jeb Bush was responsible for, or even involved in, the so called scandal. By the way, the section of the article that you linked to is poorly-sourced and likely to be removed unless some reliable sources are added soon.- MrX 21:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has tried to add some content about Jeb's employment with Lehman Brothers and his influence moving state pension funds to Lehman prior to it's collapse. The editor was reverted. Here are a few sources that should be useful for determining how we might construct this content:
.jpg)
A similar poll has been posted at Talk:Mike Huckabee#Poll. Interested users are invited to participate.- MrX 17:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm When does this end? Shall we start yet another RfC? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}