Talk:Jeb Bush/Archive 3

message: Archived from Talk:Noelle Bush after merge. Carcharoth 21:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I removed the NPOV tag, and replaced it with , 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.  [ +t, +c, +m ] 06:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by 65.91.22.2 

message: 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)
thread_title: 2002 Gubernatorial Campaign

message: 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)
thread_title: Useless Link

message: 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)
thread_title: Section Eight

message: ===unsupported statement===
"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.
===change===
"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."
===removal===
"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)
thread_title:  Biased statement, factual inaccuracy, one excision 

message: "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)
thread_title: removal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Anglicanism]] and [[Catholicism]]

message: A history of an ex-user's editing of this site is on line.
Click for on-line criticism (SummerFR on Jason Scott site)
IMO, it's mostly a rant, but see what you think...
CPMcE 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-line Criticism of this Wiki 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strangely mellow 

message: Did Jeb Bush really have an influence in the 2000 presidential election? This article  states that he was not involved Green caterpillar 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP's article on the election notes criticism of his interference with the recount. --Flawiki 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: fact

message: 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)
thread_title: Adoption?

message: 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)
thread_title: Minorities

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Noelle Bush drug scandal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lt. Gov 

message: 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 by 66.176.204.116 (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)
thread_title:  Southern Governors Association 

message: 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)
thread_title: Governors of Florida

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jeb Bush 

message: 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! bd2412 T 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full marks for you. Extremely sexy 12:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: 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)
replies: text: So what (if true) then? Extremely sexy 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional depiction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Environment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: 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)
thread_title: Political Future

message: "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)
thread_title: Unclear Wording

message: 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)
thread_title: Public Views and Perceptions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bush Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty 

message: I agree with the comment below; there seems to be a missing paragraph. I'd add it but I'd rather someone else with more knowledge do so.
The paragraph included about Mr. Recarey seems to have been lifted - without accreditation - from a Guardian UK article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/02/usa.books
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)
thread_title:  Busines Lobbying: Miguel Recarey 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Jeb Bush forms new company and gets into 'privatized' disaster response business 

message: * Amnesty for illegals
* will raise taxes
So where do we list his new national policy positions? Hcobb (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Gov political positions 

message: This article once included details about Noelle Bush's several drug arrests and prosecutions. 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)
thread_title:  Noelle Bush drug arrests whitewashed out of article 

message: So I tried to add this:
"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.""
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)
replies: text: Without giving Google too much weight, there are 2k hits at all, 21 for last year, and zero at Google News. So I can't see sufficient significance.--Polmandc (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cynthia Henderson

message: 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)
replies: text: If this keeps up, the page should be semi-protected. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Top pic

message: 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)
thread_title: Speculation from obscure commentators

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree . I'm not sure what would work better. Perhaps 'Business', 'Lobbying', and 'Politics'?- MrX 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that seems like a good idea.- MrX 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Early career 

message: 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.) JamesMLane t c 08:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could wait until there is concrete stuff to cite. Collect (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. JamesMLane t c 08:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political positions 

message: [Moving this comment posted in an archive - MrX 00:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noelle Bush drug scandal 

message: 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  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.Conroy, Scott. April 8, 2014. Could Jeb Bush Win Over the Christian Right in '16?. Real Clear Politics. Retrieved: 11 April 2015.
 Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Just as Jeb's position on Gay Rights has evolved: (former) -- (current) -- 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  that was in the Governorship section, there appears to be something else going on here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Education section at 2016 political positions 

message: Here is more well-sourced content that User:CFredkin removed  that is specifically about Jeb's current political positions; Immigration section:
(====Immigration====)
Bush has been outspoken about his support for immigration reform.Conroy, Scott. April 8, 2014. Could Jeb Bush Win Over the Christian Right in '16?. Real Clear Politics. Retrieved: 11 April 2015.
 Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Immigration section at 2016 political positions 

message: (===Gay rights===)
Bush argued against legal protections based on sexual orientation. 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."Knickerbocker, Brad. February 28, 2015.  Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues?. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved: 19 April 2015. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gay rights - Governor of Florida (1999–2007) 

message: *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)
replies: text: IMHO, I don't think the proposed image is an improvement over the current portrait.Eeyoresdream (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox picture 

message: has he oficcaly anouced  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantagenet v (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Soon to announce; included in first two debates. See Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  is jeb bush runing for president  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Political positions 

message: Should the article Political positions of Jeb Bush be summarized in this article?
=== Comments ===
* 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Should the article Political positions of Jeb Bush be summarized in this article? 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: , you will also need to tag the other article per Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger. Having a simultaneous summarize RFC and a merge proposal discussion is very confusing, BTW. --NeilN talk to me 16:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. --NeilN talk to me 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Done. Not sure if this is the correct way... -  Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Undue weight is about percentages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: WP:Undue applies to politicians.  Anyway, this article is nice and trim, so let's not get started toward obese.  There's tons of info we could put into the present article from Florida_gubernatorial_election,_1998 and Florida_gubernatorial_election,_2002.  We could also merge Jeb_Bush_presidential_campaign,_2016.  But doing that would be nuts because it would greatly unbalance the present article, just like the proposed merge would.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Undue weight is about percentages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: WP:Undue applies to politicians.  Anyway, this article is nice and trim, so let's not get started toward obese.  There's tons of info we could put into the present article from Florida_gubernatorial_election,_1998 and Florida_gubernatorial_election,_2002.  We could also merge Jeb_Bush_presidential_campaign,_2016.  But doing that would be nuts because it would greatly unbalance the present article, just like the proposed merge would.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: It is obvious by now that it will be unlikely that the merge proposal will garner consensus, so what needs to be done is to summarize that article here per WP:SUMMARY. I will strongly oppose a re-write, so any attempt at this will need to be a concise summary of his main political positions, similar to what we have for other Republican candidates such as Rand Paul#Political positions, Mike Huckabee#Political positions, Ted Cruz#Political positions, Scott Walker (politician)#Political positions, or others. -  Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I agree.  The article is definitely improved.CFredkin (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have not worked on that article and I haven't reviewed its history, but "positions" seem to be integrated into the discussion of his administration. And there are a number of sub-articles that go into more detail: Social policy of Barack Obama, Economic policy of Barack Obama, Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, etc. Neutralitytalk 05:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Political positions section 

message: 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)
thread_title: RFC at [[Political positions of Jeb Bush]]

message: (pinging two more to this conversation who commented about photos above: )
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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Calibrador (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hmm, I wonder why you continually upload my photos despite my request to stop then. Also you may want to change your attitude, perhaps read up on  WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, WP:Ownership of articles, WP:Disruptive editing, and WP:Wikihounding, as you seem to be clearly violating all of those stated policies in pursuit of a non-existent policy. Calibrador (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The image that has been atop this article since 22 June (called "jebcropped") was removed today.  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: 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.
Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Please WP:AGF. Enough of that nonsense; it is disruptive. -  Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, 3 is a good image. Let me see if I can adjust it a bit.- MrX 01:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I took the original file, cropped, and rotated. Got a very good portrait out of it. Spartan7W § 04:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very good to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New pic

message: Who knows the right pronunciation of "Jeb"? Please fill it into the article! Thanks! --Kychot (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Which of the following two images would be better at the top?
Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC question does not involve any previous survey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RFC: Which top image is better?

message: *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)
replies: text: The RFC question does not involve any previous survey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RFC survey

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RFC discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm currently using IE 11.0.14.  Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I attempted to make the wording regarding net neutrality more neutral, but was reverted. See . "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 . ~ RobTalk 13:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net Neutrality 

message: 2602:306:3592:5A0:9C2:C6A2:8CC9:CFF0 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Frost can jump in a lake....covered in downy flake.  There is no mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ETA: Basically, I agree with Rob.- MrX 15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK, I'm good with that.- MrX 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015 

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, I'm good with that.- MrX 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL information 

message: Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

message: And now today a new edit war has erupted over which image should be in the infobox of this page.  When does this end? Shall we start yet another RfC? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * Again, subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oh boy! A new edit war! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eligible Voter Purging aka Grand Theft America 

message: 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:
*Election 2016: Jeb Bush Got $1.3M Job At Lehman After Florida Shifted Pension Cash To Bank - International Business Times
*Jeb Bush Made $29 Million After Leaving Office, Tax Returns Show - Bloomberg
*Exclusive: Why Doesn't Jeb Want to Talk About Lehman Bros? - Fox News
*Florida stands to lose $1 billion because of Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy - Tampa Bay Times
*Jeb Bush’s Big Lehman Brothers Problem - The Daily Beast
*Election 2016: Jeb Bush And John Kasich’s Work At Lehman Spotlights Different Revolving Door Between Business and Government - International Business Times
*Election 2016: Jeb Bush Leveraged Political Connections For Clients And Allies After Leaving Florida Governorship, Emails Show - International Business Times
*Jeb Bush’s $1.3M Lehman Bros. Payday - Blue Nation Review
- MrX 22:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lehman Brothers