Talk:Jeb Bush/Archive 4

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

Reducing taxes by 19 billion

The text read "While governor, Bush presided over a state government that collectively reduced taxes by $19 billion". The word "collectively" is needed because the actions were not only his, but also of the legislature. We should not repeat taking points without providing a modicum of context. A good analysis is here [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The total of $19.3 billion is adjusted into 2007 dollars. The analysis includes the federal repeal of the estate tax, for which economists told us Bush couldn’t really take credit. It also includes a big cut to the state’s intangibles tax, which may not benefit your average person much. Experts said there are limits to how economists can estimate the impact of legislative actions, but the PAC’s projections could be considered fair. What’s trickier is whether Bush can take credit for all the revenue changes or even call them all tax cuts.. We ought to incorporate some of that analysis in the article for NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged that section with a POV tag. It requires context and other sources that question the WSJ numbers and analysis. Also, whatever is there should not be said in WP's voice; it needs to be fully attributed as these are not simple facts. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you've got some fair points. I've added the perspective from PolitiFact and attribution. However, I've removed the reference to "collectively" again. I believe this is implied by the phrase "Bush presided over a state government that...". Also we don't insert "collectively" into other actions that involve the legislature here or in other articles.CFredkin (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Bush did not preside over the Legislature... so your point is not valid. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say he presided over the state legislature. It says he presided over the state government.CFredkin (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I've also removed the reference to the elimination of the Intangibles tax benefiting the wealthy and businesses. That's purely opinion. Many people who are not wealthy hold stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and money market funds.CFredkin (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) The article doesn't even specify what tax cuts it's referring to.CFredkin (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
When it is the reduction of taxes from federal government, it is called "loss of revenue", but others are tax cuts? Seriously? As for the tax benefiting the wealthy and businesses, that is indeed an opinion from WaPo, fully attributed, same as the first sentence based on an opinion expressed at the WSJ. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Please re-read the source. The $884 million is the share of the federal estate tax that Florida received. It is not the same as the tax cut to Florida taxpayers resulting in the repeal of the federal estate tax. The WaPo article is a re-print of a what is essentially an editorial from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. There is significant difference between estimates of the scale of tax cuts and an opinion that they benefited the wealthy and business.CFredkin (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
may be you need to re-read it?

A big chunk of the $19.3 billion in projected tax savings came from the 2001 law to phase out the federal estate tax, which was backed in Washington by Bush’s brother, then-President George W. Bush. The state essentially received a share of this federal tax, but lost that money when the phase-out was complete. According to the PAC’s projections, by the 2007-08 fiscal year that loss of estate tax money cost Florida about $848 million per year.

Thank you. You added:

"A substantial amount of the tax savings came from the phasing out of the federal estate tax law implemented in 2001 under President George W. Bush, to a total tax savings of US$848 million per year;"

The source says that the state lost $884 million per year in tax money from the repeal of the federal estate tax. That was Florida's share of the federal estate tax that was sent back to the state by the federal government. It doesn't indicate what Florida's taxpayers had been paying in federal estate taxes.CFredkin (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Are we reading the same thing? maybe MrX can help clarify this issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The tax "savings" referred to in the first sentence of the source above is different from the loss of revenue that the state received as a share of the federal estate tax (collected by the federal government) which is referred to in the second and third sentences.CFredkin (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, after reading the source again, I think I was mistaken about this. I'll revert this content.CFredkin (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, editorials are most definitively usable. I can find many other sources that describe Bush cuts as benefiting the wealthy and businesses. Section tagged as POV until addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a blanket, polemical statement and there's no indication that it's based on any actual analysis.CFredkin (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I was paged, but I'm not sure that I can clarify much. The text in the article seems reasonable, so I assume that you both worked it out. For the sake of NPOV I suggest changing
"While governor, Bush presided over a state government that reduced taxes by..."
to
"While Bush was governor, Florida taxes were reduced by..."
- MrX 01:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Official Image Discussion

Which of these images would be proper for Bush's main image. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Option A
    Option A
  • Option B
    Option B
  • Option C
    Option C
  • Option D
    Option D
  • Option E
    Option E
  • Option F
    Option F
  • Option G
    Option G
  • Option H
    Option H
  • Option I
    Option I
  • Option J
    Option J
  • Option K
    Option K
  • Option L
    Option L
  • None of them. This is a very limited selection that does not include the images that have already been deemed most appropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Option A, which I've added given that you excluded the current image, which there has been a fairly strong consensus for in the past. It has the best lighting and avoids the red background, which is not visually appealing. @Anythingyouwant: Pinging to alert of the change, in case that changes your comment. ~ RobTalk 11:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Option B, subject has a neutral expression, he is not in the act of speaking and his head is not tilted as in A. Shadow on eyes is typical of glasses.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Option B was suggested in the above section very recently, and was nearly universally opposed. The four opposes in that section should be considered. ~ RobTalk 19:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • None of them, unfortunately. At the risk of offending the BLP slightly, opt#A looks like he is straining to chomp on a bullet, which is just about to enter the image-frame. Opt#B was the closest to reasonable, in my eyes, but the complaints by User:Spartan7W about the poor posture convinced me it is prolly sub-optimal as well. (I never noticed the asymmetrical shoulders ... but now that it has been pointed out it really irks me.  :-)   Uncropped-variant opt#G is even worse thataway. The other options are all non-pleasing-to-the-eye. The worst option is not in the gallery here, but was suggested way up above, where he has his hands up and his mouth open and needs a caption like "somebody get me a bucket quick" or similar. To be fair, I fully understand that, because he has been out of office for so long, and because of his recent weight-loss regimen, it is pretty important that we use a recent photo, rather than the official 2002 portrait as governor or whatever. But don't we have a photo where he looks normal, aka a posed photo, like the one you take for elementary school so your parents can be bilked out of a few bucks every year? Surely such pics exist on flickr under a wikipedia-compatible license. Anyone know how to search there, better than myself? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Just checked Flickr. There are images, but only before his substantial weight loss. We pretty clearly shouldn't use those. ~ RobTalk 22:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • (e/c) Here are some possibilities. Posed, at FITN in April 2015 (just saw this one is further up the talkpage as "image#5" in an earlier poll),[2] a bit over-smiley if anything, coloration a bit odd perhaps, or maybe the *other* photos we have are odd-coloration since this is taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III camera, CC BY-SA 2.0 license (wikipedia uses CCBYSA3... not sure if those are upward-compatible). March 2013 at CPAC, not posed, almost laughing, Canon EOS 50D, CCBYSA2.[3] Sept 2012 at WAC, series of posed photo-ops, smiling pretty normally in most, camera unspecified, CCBY2.[4][5][6][7][8][9]     None of these options are *perfect* but at least they are somewhat pleasing to the eye, and thus NPOV-compliant. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment There is such a file (aside) but it is at least a decade old, and like Hillary's 2009 State Dept. portrait, is outdated (aging, weight gain + loss, hair, glasses [that comment wasn't sexist]). You can tell its the same person, but unlike Mitt Romney, they aren't eternally ageless. @75.108.94.227: Problem with those is he's lost a good amount of weight, he has new glasses.Spartan7W § 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) All pictures but the first are pre weight loss, which is not an accurate depiction of him now. The first has horrible lighting. ~ RobTalk 22:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Here is the pic that the campaign *wants* to propagate.[10][11] Note lack of glasses. See also similar pic, taken Dec'14, used in news Jun'15, no glasses.[12] Here is a pretty decent pic, despite not-very-NPOV source, credit "Brooks Kraft/Corbis".[13][14] Another, pretty decent although coloration a bit odd, credit "David Paul Morris / Bloomberg / © 2015 Bloomberg Finance LP".[15][16] I'm not finding much though. Personally, I suggest we find the nicest-to-the-BLP pic with a free license that we can find from 2013 or 2014, one that doesn't have weight-related-aesthetics (head shots are not the same a side-profile-shots). If we cannot, then I suggest we temporarily utilize the official campaign-photo, which is not libre-license, but which is click-here-to-download, and *is* the official headshot (despite no glasses). Spartan7w may get us a photo when the September debate comes to California, perhaps; and it seems reasonably certain that SOMEBODY will get a good libre-licenced photo in the next couple weeks, or the next couple months at most. At present, I don't think what we want exists: libre-licensed, non-blurry, non-obstructed, non-grimacing, reasonably-flattering, good-lighting, high-rez, eyes-front, well-framed, non-posture-impaired, very-recent-photo-with-latest-glasses-being-worn. I think we should concentrate on the fundamentals: libre, no blur, no obstructions, no grimaces, reasonably flattering, preferably with good lighting. Resolution/eye-direction/framing/posture/glassesOrNot... those are secondary considerations, which should not be ignored, but should not trump the basic goal of getting an NPOV-compliant BLP-compliant photo of the candidate. I'd rather use the FITN photo, which has odd lighting, but is otherwise "not horrible" than continue to use one with a catching-a-speeding-bullet grimace; it might even be possible for somebody with the software toolset required, to adjust the odd coloration, as a temporary measure until a better photo can be located/taken. Anyways, I'll leave this one to the photo-experts. Thanks for your efforts folks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
            • It looks like there are several of him being shown bespectacled on his official campaign website. I think the one from nymag is quite good, definitely the best I've seen mentioned so far. I'd oppose the use of the FITN photo for now, as he strikes me as looking a bit hunched and fidgety in it in addition to the other issues you mention. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I added Option I, which shares setting and background with Option A, but does not feature the candidate with his head tilted or speaking.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    Image I is good inasmuch as it is current and of pretty good quality. Unfortunately, the "deer in headlights" look is bit too distracting for a encyclopedia bio.- MrX 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, honestly, the ONLY reason people want to keep the current image is because he actually looks a LOT like his father in his heyday in that image..--Stemoc 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • A familial resemblance is inevitable when they're, y'know, family. I support the first image because it's currently the best we have, although I'm open to other possibilities if they emerge. Assume good faith. ~ RobTalk 06:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Option B might be improved if someone has the tools and know-how to crank up the saturation and warmth, while graying out the background a bit, if possible. Or maybe it needs more green? It looks too red and flat or something to me. Otherwise I'd say H, G, or stick with A. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment added new images. I think L might be the best. If not D and I could be runner ups. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI, image "L" was already considered here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Please note that there were two "Option L"s prior to my last edit. Did you in fact mean L or was it K you liked? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Allegedly sanitized article

Merely a passing observation, in that I came here to find vetted references to the chap. This is the most cleansed, sanitized and no doubt heavily policed article I've yet seen on Wikipedia. Not a hint of any critical observation regarding the subject's life. This is hagiography masquerading as referenced objectivity, and I can't believe people haven't tried including accurate referenced critical material over the years and had it blotted from sight. Such blatant bleaching is shameful. JohnHarris (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cb6: You're welcome to suggest specific references and additions. ~ RobTalk 15:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
As and when I see suitable sources I may well give that a go, thank you. JohnHarris (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I see this hasn't happened. Odd, given that it was apparently such a poorly masked hagiography. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've not seen mention of Mr Bush since I made my comment, that's all. We Brits have been preoccupied with the New Messiah, one Jeremy Corbyn, to the exclusion of all else. Nonetheless, I thank you for the encouragement. JohnHarris (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cb6: I agree. Honestly, this article might be worth adding a neutrality banner to it because it talks barely at all about controversy or opposition to his actions, or does so in such a way that the subject is more of a protagonist than a subject Matt White (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Specifics?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed some of the gushing praise and trivia earlier this year, but it could use quite a bit more. Examples
  1. "Bush worked as an unpaid volunteer, and later said that his father is "the greatest man I’ve ever met or will meet; I can predict that fairly confidently. It was payback time, simple as that."..."
  2. The entire second paragraph of Early political career
  3. "A notable moment in this campaign was when he was asked what he would do for African Americans if he were to be elected. Bush responded: "It’s time to strive for a society where there’s equality of opportunity, not equality of results. So I’m going to answer your question by saying: probably nothing.""
  4. "Simultaneously, his brother, George W. Bush won a re-election victory for a second term as Governor of Texas, and the Bush brothers became the first siblings to govern two states at the same time since Nelson and Winthrop Rockefeller governed New York and Arkansas from 1967 to 1971."
  5. The second and fifth paragraphs of Political interests and business activities
  6. His positions on electronic surveillance are absent, and they have also been sanitized at Political positions of Jeb Bush#Civil liberties and electronic surveillance thanks to some edit warring.
  7. The Education policy section has some WP:UNDUE content.
  8. His tax plan in which more than half of the tax cuts (52.9%) would go to the wealthiest 1%, is absent
  9. The laudatory source "Governor Jeb Bush: A Record of Leadership and Policy Accomplishment" (PDF). Washington Policy Center." is way overused.
  10. The last paragraph of 2016 presidential election
  11. The words "tradition marriage" need to be replaced with "same-sex marriage"
  12. His drug use and alleged bullying while at Phillips Academy is a little lacking on coverage.
Would anyone like to help fix some of this?- MrX 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Those seem like mostly good and helpful comments, and I've used them to make a bunch of article edits. But your last comment seems amiss. The Wikipedia article already says that he "occasionally smoked marijuana". Do we need to describe how many joints, the country of origin, and whether he lit the joints himself?  :-) Please provide a source if you think so. As for surveillance, the stuff about that is in the article about his current political positions, whereas this article seems to focus on political positions as governor, and in any event I tend to oppose de-linking his position on srveillance from his position on CISA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. The drug use in #12 was a lesser concern, although it was reported the also used hashish[17] [18] [19] [20]. I would be interested to know if other editors think the alleged bullying merits inclusion.- MrX 19:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the alleged pajama modification warrants inclusion, so I put it in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You can also add this one in the Political interests and business activities section: "The following August, Bush joined investment bank, Lehman Brothers, as an adviser in its private equity group". This aspect has been well covered, but the short mention does not do justice to the available material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like there is a subsection in this Wikipedia article titled Political interests and another titled Business activities. Which subsection are you suggesting that stuff be inserted?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Some sources:

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This from the Fox Business article is revealing and relevant: Jeb Bush earned more money from Wall Street than any single source—nearly half of the $29 million he earned between the time he left the Florida governor’s mansion in 2007 and when he decided to run for Republican presidential nomination in December 2014. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Image Update

File:Jeb2k15.tif
Face forward, very clear, uniform lighting, natural smiling expression

I strongly dislike the present infobox image. It is poor in quality, composition, and pose. His mouth is ajar, head to the side, coloring is poor. I propose we use this image (right), and here is the rationale:

  • This image is high resolution and high quality. It was included in the original RfC which chose the present infobox image. However, this is a superior version.
  • It has far better coloring and resolution quality.
  • The subject, Governor Bush, is facing directly towards the camera, and his eyes are (or appear to be) looking directly at the camera.
  • He has a calm facial expression, with a closed smile. Smiling is acceptable in images, and this is a definite smile as opposed to having been caught mid-speech.
  • With this newer version we have good coloring, good composition, good pose, and an image which is far more fair, representative, flattering, and encyclopedia quality. Frankly, the present image is not encyclopedia quality, it is poor in all areas. We should have a better image than any available, but we don't. Of those available, this is by far the best in terms of quality, composition, and pose. It is far better than many images other biographies are stuck with. It is better than what is present.

An RfC is not a case of Papal Infallibility. I could use WP:BOLD to make this change, but I'm not. We ought to discuss the use of WP:BOLD to throw out the previous RfC conclusion. This article without doubt needs a superior image, and this provides an improvement. It provides a closer approach to encyclopedic quality, along with fair and more flattering treatment to the Governor. That's my proposal, my two cents.   Spartan7W §   06:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

He has a weird expression in that image, his body and head are going different directions, and the lighting/coloring is awful. This is a much better image that should be the image used.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Both of those would be better than the one currently used. Personally think I prefer the first one is a little better. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Based on what?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My opinion. MavsFan28 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Lighting and coloring are awful? That image you like has very poor lighting, everything is excessively yellow.   Spartan7W §   00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The lighting and coloring are uneven on the goofy image. The claim you make about the photo I proposed is completely false.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The coloring is very poor. I've seen him front row in person and he doesn't look that pasty, yellow teeth. Glasses are old too.   Spartan7W §   07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Your POV notwithstanding, the coloring & lighting is consistent and there is no reason to question its authenticity. The goofy image you are promoting has inconsistent lighting, however, that is bright in some places and dark in others. "Glasses are old too" - that has to be the stupidest reason for opposing a photo that I've ever seen.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Similar to goofy photo but not goofy

Jeb Bush in 2015

Please consider this photo, which I think is the best, and I regret overlooking this possibility earlier.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly inserted the pic (wearing jacket) below right as the top image, and inserted the pic above right without jacket into the template. Seems like a marked improvement to me. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The eyes look like they're bulging out of his head in that image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The image is not perfect, but it seems an improvement over what it replaced. He is looking intently at the camera, but eyes "bulging" seems a tad hyperbolic. I don't like the image you suggested primarily because it is so informal, without jacket.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
In the picture you are promoting, he's not even wearing a tie. It reeks of informality and makes him look sloppy. It is incredibly blurry to go along with the obvious lighting issues.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Come now William, you're "promoting" a picture without tie and without jacket. You mean to say that a top pic is more formal without both of those accoutrements than without only one of them?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying a jacket without a tie looks sloppy. If you're not going to wear a tie then don't wear a jacket. But that's beside the point. The picture I am promoting shows his entire face clearly. There are no shadows or bright spots. He is smiling in a natural manner. And his eyes are looking forward.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Where are the "bulging" eyes looking?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
To the side, not to the camera like the image I am promoting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like he's staring straight at the camera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how he's sloppily dressed. Go to any semi-formal event and you'll see plenty of men not wearing ties: sportcoat/blazer, sport shirt, slacks, belt, nice shoes, no tie. The lighting in the top and bottom is very good. Look at the photo series it comes from, he's being interviewed by Sean Hannity, and the lighting is professionally done with television equipment. His eyes aren't bulging, he has a happy expression without teeth being bared. The middle image has no jacket, the color is poor (likely due to light source), his teeth look yellow. Don't forget glasses. We want Ben Carson images without glasses because that's his new look. Bush now has rimless glasses he's wearing on the campaign trail, which are difficult to see. Very different from the older glasses which don't reflect his common appearance.   Spartan7W §   19:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox images don't necessarily have to reflect what the subject looks like at this exact moment. The image is from 2015, so it doesn't make sense to focus on something as trivial as his glasses type. The lighting for the Hannity event is for television viewing, not necessarily for photography. Color looks real in the image I am promoting. I wouldn't discount that he has yellow teeth in reality.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like the man has nice white teeth.[21][22][23] Isn't it enough to have the informal pic in the template?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The first one looks pretty yellow. The second is blurry. The third has probably been touched up.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Fix his photo. It's ridiculous. All the other candidates pages have nice photos - either their formal wall photo or a nice one (Carson, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Sanders, Paul, Clinton, etc). It's absurd to give him a goofy looking photo... I don't know or care about Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.223.31 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest a photo.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Until a portrait quality image or otherwise becomes available, it is best to follow precedent. I have placed his official gubernatorial portrait in the infobox. We can argue about images for election pages and his campaign article. Here, with no portrait quality alternative, the official is best. In any event, we normally use the official portrait from the most recent office, if available.   Spartan7W §   19:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@CFredkin: See above. There is no image of portrait quality to match the official portrait. The official portrait is available from the last/highest office held, it should be used. A compelling case can be made if an active candidate has an image of quality to match an official portrait. This model is used for Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Governors (where portrait available), etc.   Spartan7W §   20:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I expect to have a high-quality, official photo on or about Monday.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture survey

Which of these two images is best at the top? Note that the 2015 image has not previously been considered.

Image more than ten years old that was the official portrait when he was governor
Image from May 2015
  • 2015 Image. This is excellent quality, looking directly at camera. The present situation is unlike the Rubio situation where we have an official image for his present official position. Jeb Bush has not been governor for quite a while, and he also looks quite different now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It has been an established practice to use the official portrait of the most recent/current office held. Examples include Hillary Clinton, all Presidents, etc. This is the sensible policy. I do, however, believe that if a portrait image of such quality arises as to be equivalent to the official portrait, for ongoing campaigns these can be used. Again, as with Hillary Clinton. However no such image exists. This new image is not head-on, is not looking at the camera, mouth is open. It is not of portrait/headshot quality.   Spartan7W §   01:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think the practice you describe is as established as you think it is. See Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, etc, etc, etc. Having a very old image of Jeb Bush seems mostly to portray him as a has-been, it seems to me. The proposed picture is high quality, and I don't really see any problem with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Improved lighting

@Winkelvi: has improved the lighting of the 2015 pic. We also need to avoid having the same image in the template and at the top.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • those individuals you list have no free-use portrait available for use. Jeb does.   Spartan7W §   03:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to take a look at the comments here. Moreover, Pataki was governor ages ago, and I don't think we'd be obliged to use such an old photo if it were available. Same for the others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter was president ages ago, but we don't use a new portrait. See, Pataki and the others have no available free-use official portrait. If they had one, they'd be there.   Spartan7W §   03:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter is not an active candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how an old, outdated photo is helpful to readers, even if it is a professional or official portrait. My vote is for the lighting corrected version of #2 (would that make it choice #3?) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

His name is John Ellis Bush and I believe the title should reflect his actual name and not his nick name. His nickname is Jeb Bush which Stands for John Ellis Bush Bush. Hypervisior (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: See WP:COMMONNAME. Same reason Bill Clinton is named the way it is. --Majora (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

This protection is pulled ahead to an earlier expiration of February 9, 2016.

Guestajh (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --allthefoxes (Talk) 02:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Biggest loser: Jeb Bush still getting primary election votes, most of all drop-outs

Biggest loser: Jeb Bush still getting primary election votes, most of all drop-outs.--Jibabaiopi (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biggest-loser-jeb-bush-still-getting-primary-election-votes-most-of-all-drop-outs/article/2585572

--Jibabaiopi (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people voted absentee before the election, when Bush was still a candidate. They voted for Bush and their votes are counted for Bush. Rjensen (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel so bad for Jeb Bush, since Donald Trump humiliated him so bad. So bad that memes like "Jeb is a mess" from Super Deluxe went viral. Let's hope he does better for his 2020 campaign!

Source(s):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-McIdVuY88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR1FRqvn-4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiAUIM8cw2I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4fPp2Uebc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abfLDg_7Hjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8_vnM3C0wI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRyI0qQilM

Top pic

Now that Bush's presidential candidacy has ended, I think his primary notability for the foreseeable future will be as a former governor, and so I support restoring the official photo as governor. We probably should do likewise for other former presidential candidates, if official governor pics are available.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeb Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Portrait Change

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is no consensus to change the infobox portrait (so, keep image A). Those who believe image A is better note that it is a more recent portrait and argue that it is easier to identify the subject with it. Those who believe image B (the official portrait as governor) is better argue that Bush's notability derives mostly from his time as governor and note that official portraits are used on similar articles. Others disagree, arguing that Bush's presidential candidacy was a significant source of notability and that his campaign's end does not mean that a less recent image should be used. Overall, there is no consensus here to change the main infobox portrait to image B, but image B can continue to be included in the body of the article. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
A
B

Should the infobox portrait for Governor Bush be changed from A to B? — 14:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


  • Support — I understand that image A has bee established, by consensus, as the infobox portrait for Governor Bush. This, however, was under the pretext of his presidential campaign, in which a more recent image is preferable to show an active candidate. However, his campaign has ended. This is why I believe image B should be brought back as his infobox portrait. His presidential campaign, while perhaps speculated as high-profile by many pundits, was of little note, neither winning a state or top-3 position, and ended after the third contest. As with many, many other former officeholders, using an official portrait, in my opinion, is best. Hillary Clinton, herself an active candidate (for whom high quality portrait-equivalents are available) still retains a 7-year-old offical portrait in her infobox. In all honesty, image A was the best we could do, but it is a very poor image. It is not head-on, the subject isn't looking at the camera, his mouth looks like it is sipping a straw, it is very unflattering. Governor Bush's highest office held is governor, and the result of his campaign is such that it alone would hardly warrant much of an article. His governorship, however, is the primary source of his notability.
His father's article uses his official portrait, which is 27 years old, but that's not a problem because he left office in 1993. The same model is followed for former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Congressmen, and should be followed here. Image B is a formal, official portrait as Governor of Florida. It is head-on, he is facing the camera, it is of good lighting, composition, and is of sufficient resolution. It is by far a superior image to A. All-in-all, I think that restoring his official portrait, image A is most appropriate to ensure the encyclopedic quality of this biographical article.   Spartan7W §   14:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - How one does in an election in terms of victories has nothing to do with their notability. Jeb Bush is not of little note. When you're on TV constantly, parodied in editorial cartoons and comedians' monologues, that's high-notability. In any event, the "B" portrait is outdated. We don't know what Bush's career is going to be at this point; just because he isn't going to be President (look at Al Gore and Jimmy Carter) doesn't mean that his portrait shouldn't be current. "A" is the more appropriate image, while "B" should be a secondary image located in sections related to his time as governor, which is the case now. Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Spartan. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think that Image A is a better picture for the Infobox portrait. It is close up and a head and shoulder portrait photo. Image "B" should be a secondary image located in sections related to his time as governor, which is the case now. NapoleonX (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I had previously been in favor of leaving image A in the infobox and image B in the article's section about Bush's tenure as Governor, but after reading Spartan's rationale, I've changed my mind. It does seem to be the standard practice on a lot of American politicians' articles to have an official office photo of them in the infobox when available. On articles where this isn't the case (such as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee), that only seems to be because there aren't freely-licensed official office photos of them available. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, but only because his presidential campaign is over. During that campaign, he was primarily notable, for a substantial amount of time, as a presidential candidate rather than as a former governor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. For the reasons given above. -- ML (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
C
  • Oppose. When Bush dies, it might make sense to use his last official portrait, but while he lives, we should use the latest portrait of quality. I would have preferred a closer crop of B, but it doesn't look so great in this case (see "C" to the right). Is there a reason why we don't have that official photo in higher res? I left a note on its talk page—I don't see it in its listed source at the time of its upload. A is best for identifying the subject of the two. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Better close up and more recent picture with proposal A. Wykx (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It doesn't make sense to use a photo that is at least 12½ years old, and probably predates Wikipedia. Biography photos should accurately represent the subject as they last appeared in public.- MrX 22:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: @MrX: So what about Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush? Carter's is 35+ years old, 41's is 27, but nobody thinks those should be changed.   Spartan7W §   14:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Spartan7W: That's not really a parallel case. Both were U.S. Presidents and both have not sought public office since leaving the presidency. Jeb Bush's national notability is largely due his candidacy for president.- MrX 21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A is more recent and of higher quality.LM2000 (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A is more recent, and it's easier to see his face, which takes up the majority of the pic. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For reasons stated above. The main image has no copyright issues that I'm aware of, and is a more recent close-up picture of the article subject. It doesn't mean that the old picture cannot be used appropriately in another section of the article, though :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the quick identification of a person in an infobox, a head shot without a distracting background is optimal for viewing on all devices. The other photo is fine for elsewhere in the article. Jonathunder (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Official portrait is better than the photo currently being used. Personally, I prefer File:Governor of Florida Jeb Bush 2015 in NH by Michael Vadon (cropped).jpg, which I believe is the best available image of Jeb Bush.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Image A is more clear and recent. I like B as well, but think it would be better placed in the body of the page, not the infobox. Meatsgains (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2016 (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.

Sources for infobox religion?

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

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

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

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[24] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[25] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[26] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[27] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[28]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[29] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[30] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[31] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[32] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[33] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

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

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

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories.

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

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

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeb Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

I noticed that you guys protected the page. Thank you!

Mr. Eisenhower (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You're welcome, but an edit request was not necessary to say thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

There is currently a discussion that you may be involved. Mr. Eisenhower (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing request, since no change proposed. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

You cannot browse this page at Google.com because it is restricted. Baptism-only account (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeb Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Claim of his membership in the socialist club at boardin school

This claim, it appears, is actually untrue. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/19/jeb-bush-young-socialist.html Should it be omitted from this article due to these questions surrounding its factuality?
SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has VERY strong rules about the need for excellent sourcing for wp:BLP biographies of living people. Rjensen (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeb Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeb Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Mention of "Low-Energy Jeb" nickname under Campaign?

Many pundits attribute Jeb's defeat in part to Donald Trump's name-calling. Perhaps that warrants a mention? We All Love Jeb! (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeb Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeb Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

wife's name (maiden)

Mrs. Bush should not be referred to as "Columba Gallo" but as either "Columba Garnica" or "Columba Garnica Gallo".

2601:1C1:8801:4EAF:71B4:927:18B4:C5A0 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gone with the full name for clarity; if anybody feels that's too long, it could be cut back to just the parternal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

change "former President George H. W. Bush" to "the late President George H. W. Bush." 2601:2C3:680:3310:9023:145B:672F:DE1C (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: why "late"? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeb_Bush/Archive_4&oldid=1190464777"