Talk:Jeb Bush/Archive 1

message: This test has been removed and was subsequently restored:
He also narrowly avoided scandal after the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing in 1995 when he refused to renounce his parish priest's assertions that the bombing was God's way of punishing our society for allowing more liberal attitudes towards women and gays. Fortunately for Bush, the local media quickly dropped the story and Bush remained focused on mounting a second attempt at running for governor.
It should be removed because it is unsubstanciated and mere innuendo inappropriate for inclusion in the article.
I removed this:
:Journalist Greg Palast has alleged that some African-American voters were deliberately prevented from voting in the 2002 election through the use of inaccurate voter "purge" lists of felons and deceased people. 
The reason is that it doesn't have much to do with Jeb Bush.  If the allegation was that he ordered it or was aware of it. Then it should stay, but just because something happened in Florida and one free-lance journalist associates it with Bush doesn't make it encyclopedia material.
I also removed this:
:Further, while Governor Bush has traditionally been a supporter of free enterprise, in the wake of hurricane Charley he criticized the price gouging which was a consequence of the free market.  He described the practice of increasing the price of scarce goods in response to increased demand as "horrific," authorizing his Attorney General, Charlie Crist, to began proceedings against entrepreneurs engaged in price gouging.
The reason is simply that Florida (like many states) has a law against price gouging.  Laws against price gouging may be controversial, but it isn't hypocrisy for a governor to uphold a law.
There are many other areas of controversy if someone wants to add them before I get to them.  Examples:
*He was peripherally involved in Iran Contra by delivering a letter from an acquaintance to his father, who passed it on to Oliver North.  
*He indirectly borrowed money from a savings and loan that went into default and was bailed out as part of the S&L fiasco.
*The 2000 election vote recount in Florida.
Ydorb 23:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
You seem a bit too excited to get these "many other areas of controversy" into the article.  The Iran Contra thing is a huge stretch, the S&L is legit, and the 2000 recount has been certified and recertified and investigated and researched, ad infinitum - all of which do nothing to incriminate Jeb Bush in any wrongdoing whatsoever.  (DJ November 8 2004) 
:But, laws against price gouging are contrary to free enterprise. There's a line between "enforcing the law" and "giving aid and comfort to the law." He could enforce it without agreeing with it, but it sounds as if he agrees completely with it, either philosophically or for political reasons. --Golbez 23:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
:I would think that the 2000 presidential election in Florida would be considered a "controversy," and, whether or not Jeb had anything to do with anything unethical, think it would be worth at least a mention here. There is no doubt that people associate the Florida election with controversy (that is, nobody claims that it wasn't a controvertial election), and much of that controversy was fueled by Jeb Bush being W. Bush's brother. I don't think that it would be POV to say that this was a controversy that involved him --Asbestos 00:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removals in November 2004

message: Matani2005, it seems to me that in your edit on the article, you restored the text that had been deleted and changed by JEZ. Thank you. I appreciate your help, as the edits JEZ made did not aid any reader in any way. SummerFR 01:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you Admin Matani2005 for restoring JEB article

message: To BaronLarf From SummerFR: 
Thank you for any format changes you did to improve the Jeb Bush article. I was a bit perplexed that you came to that page, after I then saw this on your user page:
"Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page."
In any event -- please note: you are the 2nd person to change the way quotes appear in the article, and both you and the other wiki person claim to have the format correct,
but neither one of you agree. So. I will just wait till the 3rd person comes along and changes the format again. Same thing with certain other format changes that others
approved (and I never did in the first place), but you changed, and, I am sure, again, someone will come along and then change your format saying it was wrong, too. So,
I am staying away from format arguments since no one here seems to actually agree on format. With respect to photos, kindly read my talk page and you will see an
on-going discussion about it. Thanks again for your interest and help, and I am being sincere, because if you made the page look better, I appreciate it. But, FYI,
I believe the photo issue is already resolved. And, I will let the other person I am already involved on that, on my talk page, know more. SummerFR 17:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Issue: See below email to me from Gov Bush's spokesperson, Alia Faraj

message: *BaronLarf, I can not tell if you have seen my latest response to you about your concern over the myflorida.com photos, as I do not yet see any response from you
on the Jeb article discussion page. However, FYI, I did post an email response there that I received today from Gov Bush's spokeswoman, and I hope that satisfies you for now. 
Also, for the reasons I stated in my last response on the discussion page -- my belief that any lawyer will want to see how the photos are being used -- I intend to restore
all photos as I had them, to enable those lawyers next week to see them on the page. I am asking that you leave those photos up for that purpose, since getting an answer
is what both you and I seek, and I feel we will get an answer if they know what we are talking about. They will not know if you keep deleting the photos. In addition, I will
later write to you a longer response on the discussion page of the Jeb article, outlining the reasons for a complaint I have about every single political and historical biography entry
I have thus far read on wikipedia, and my complaint is this: there are not enough photos on those pages. There should have been more, and I will make my case about this.
Consequently, in my view, as an educator and someone who wants to support the goals of wikipedia, the real problem here is not that I have posted too many photos, but
that not enough photos have been posted on other wiki entries. That is something we can perhaps discuss more after you consider my reasoning, to come. Thanks, SummerFR 01:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Discussion, Continued

message: FreplySpang, to you, too, as I just wrote this Baronlarf:
*BaronLarf, Please post on the Jeb Bush discussion page a list of all the words, phrases you find objectionable and you think should be changes, so I can know what you are talking about specifically. Thanks. SummerFR 09:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for info

message: I have removed a large number of very small photos in this article that were scattered about with no captions. None of them was following the Wikipedia:Image use policy (they all lack the required standardized licensing information). Fair use is something we accept in special circumstances, but certainly not to litter an article with tiny little photos that add little to the information content therein. In general, we seek photos that are suitable for a print edition (about 300 dpi). I would like to ask the involved parties to add  image copyright tags to the remaining photos.
I have also reworded the "How Jeb Bush changed political history" (!) section. This title was clearly POV, as was some of the content. Someone seems to be intent on labeling Jeb Bush as "historic" at every opportunity; please avoid such labels and instead just describe exactly what happened and when. If you start making value statements like this, the other side can make value statements to the opposite effect; e.g., "making an impact on poverty or the income gap is more historically important than having a few minority officials." As I said, avoid such value statements, just describe what happened, or you will wind up arguing endlessly.
Looking over the article, I see a lot of POV issues here and there; more pruning is definitely needed. --Eloquence* 06:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, "Eloquence" - "more pruning" on that Jeb Bush article is "Definately" needed! Why today, for a brief few hours, he even had a mother again mentioned up there in the summary! We can't have that, now, can we? Jeb is all male, right? Not born of any mother, just a father and a brother who is president. So -- prune away! Hurry! Get rid of anything that might make him into  a person born of a mother! Yes, hurry! Prune, prune, prune! Someone might think he was born of a mother, just like other people on this earth! Quick! Destroy that image of a human being, with God forbid, a mother! After all, what do we want to do here at Wikipedia? Make Jeb Bush seem like a human being? We can't have that! Prune, prune, prune! 
: The user who uploaded and added those images, SummerFR, has apparently left Wikipedia - see her talk page. So, she won't be tagging the images or getting permission from copyright holders. I have been trying to track down the sources of the images in order to list them for deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I have gotten through about half of them, and removed them from this page. (The rest are almost certainly copyright violations too. SummerFR didn't seem to understand the requirements of Wikipedia:Image use policy.) FreplySpang (talk) 01:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading this page makes it clear that her leaving was inevitable.  One can only marvel at her imagining that arbitration might come out in her favor.I've gone through and deleted nearly every occurrence of "Jeb".  The standalones ("Jeb" without "Bush") were particularly egregious (I wonder what Ms. FR would think of an article on Clinton that repeatedly refers to "Bill"), and the others  were unnecessary (and stylistically wrong for an encyclopedia).  I also eliminated some of the more extreme rah rah wording.  I also changed Democrat to Democratic when used as an adjective ("the Democrat Party" is a particularly egregious use of hyper-anti-Democrat code word terminology).  The article could now at least be mistaken as NPOV when quickly skimmed. User 23:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Given that you haven't signed your messages at all, your comment about "User" turns the mind to pots and kettles. Your main point, about "Jeb", is wrong for a number of reasons. First, that he's widely known by that name "in the state" is irrelevant; we're writing an international refernce work. Secondly, respectable refernce works use surnames, not first names to refer to their subjects. Thirdly, this applies to refernces to subjcts as children too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos in this article, POV issues 

message: From the Image Discussion Page:
Image talk:Govjebbushportrait.jpg
Email Permission to SummerFR from the State of FL General Counsel
Via Email
May 10, 2005
Dear [SummerFR]:
>Thank you for contacting Governor Bush regarding reproductions of >photographs believed to originate on the MyFlorida.Com website. The State of >Florida hereby grants you permission to reproduce Governor Bush's official >portrait on Wikipedia. [....]
>Gerard York >Assistant General Counsel >Florida Department of Management Services >4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 >Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 >Office: (850) 410-1698 >Facsimile: (850) 922-6312 > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------
===Notes from Image Discussion Page===   
- 5/13/05 - Well, this is the 2nd time in less than three days that the image of Gov Bush has been tampered with -- and deleted from his bio page. And, this time, someone edited the image out of BOTH his Wikipedia bio page, and of the Image download page. Since Gov Bush's image apparently will be edited it out by Wikipedia on a daily basis, it is clear that the harassment continues of Jeb Bush's bio page, whether "SummerFR" is here being harassed at Wikipedia or not. No matter where "SummerFR" may be, the Jeb Bush page will be trashed by Wikipedia. Obviously, there's nothing "SummerFR" can do about that. (And, NO, "SummerFR" is NOT the one trashing his page or his image. Someone else, not known to "SummerFR," is doing that here at Wikipedia.) 
:Check Wikipedia more generally; there has been a problem, and many images are missing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I now have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds as though you might be wearing baking foil inside your hat, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeb Bush Copyrighted Photo Permission To SummerFR, Granted by FL General Counsel's Email to SummerFR, FYI 

message: - 5/13/05 - Well, this is the 2nd time in less than three days that the image of Gov Bush has been tampered with -- and deleted from his bio page. And, this time, someone edited the image out of BOTH his Wikipedia bio page, and of the Image download page. Since Gov Bush's image apparently will be edited it out by Wikipedia on a daily basis, it is clear that the harassment continues of Jeb Bush's bio page, whether "SummerFR" is here being harassed at Wikipedia or not. No matter where "SummerFR" may be, the Jeb Bush page will be trashed by Wikipedia. Obviously, there's nothing "SummerFR" can do about that. (And, NO, "SummerFR" is NOT the one trashing his page or his image. Someone else, not known to "SummerFR," is doing that here at Wikipedia.) 
:Check Wikipedia more generally; there has been a problem, and many images are missing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I now have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds as though you might be wearing baking foil inside your hat, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes from Image Discussion Page

message: I made several changes to the article in an effort to make it better. I wrote specific reasons for my changes as I edited, on the edit history. 205.161.226.189
:LOL, Summer. You forgot to sign that post, so I put in the IP you were on just then (they seem to be dynamic). Uh, don't you think what you wrote about "someone else, not known to SummerFR" above was a bit of a giveaway? Think about it. --Bishonen | talk 01:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: About your recent edit summaries: Wikipedia is a place that values civility and cooperation. Has it occurred to you that Governor Bush would be embarrassed if he were to see a supporter of his screaming the place down? Please stop. You're making people ashamed. --Bishonen | talk 02:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the Article

message: has on anumber of occasions removed comments (his own and mine) from this page (e.g., ).  I've warned him about this pointless activity (pointless because the comments are still in the page history), but his peculiar obsession extends to a Stalinist rewriting of history. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of comments from this page

message: From "Noel" -- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN
POV-pushers with DHCP pools
So once again (see, e.g WP:AN/I#User:SummerFR) we are having problems with POV-pushers coming in as anons from DHCP pools, which make it a lot of work to deal with them (and there's always the issue that a range block might impact innocents). So here's a suggestion: add another flag to articles which, when set, allows them to be edited only from logged-in accounts. We would set this flag only on articles which are the target of POV-pushers, and they'd be then forced to sign up for an account, which we could block. (Yes, they can sign up for another account, but that's still a certain amount of work, and we already have sock-puppets to deal with.) Yes, yes, I know this is a change to our policy of allowing people to edit without logging in, but it's a minimal change. Also, you can think of it as being a milder form of Wikipedia:Protection - and like protecting, we can always clear it after a while, once the problem editor has given up. Noel (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How a Wikipedian Wants to Keep Out People Who Know Facts About the Subject of an Article