Talk:Jeb Bush: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:52, 11 February 2015 editJojhutton (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,483 edits →Bush leaks all over Florida: say what?← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:56, 11 February 2015 edit undoMrX (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,648 edits →the neutral version?: easy to fixNext edit →
Line 67:		Line 67:
	:Why not? It explains what happened, that the release was (probably) lawful, and that personal details were revealed. What more needs to be said?- ]] 01:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)		:Why not? It explains what happened, that the release was (probably) lawful, and that personal details were revealed. What more needs to be said?- ]] 01:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
	::It says "exposed", uses poor grammar, and the number of SSNs is unknown -- yet the implication is made that a great many had them and that they were not ''told'' the emails were public records. As the governor's Contact page ''explicitly'' tells people about the law, that omission is pretty bad. Cheers. ] (]) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)		::It says "exposed", uses poor grammar, and the number of SSNs is unknown -- yet the implication is made that a great many had them and that they were not ''told'' the emails were public records. As the governor's Contact page ''explicitly'' tells people about the law, that omission is pretty bad. Cheers. ] (]) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
			:::So change "exposing" to "revealing"; tweak the grammar; and leave the rest alone. " Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws," includes any disclosures on any state owned website. Mentioning that additional detail tips the POV scales way off balance.- ]] 01:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:56, 11 February 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jeb Bush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Texas / University of Texas at Austin / Governors Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Miami High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

silly season can at least wait until announcements are made

The adding of trivia not considered important by major reliable sources is pretty useless and seems to be based on Misplaced Pages being a daily newspaper. It isn't. Wait until multiple major sources bring up actual issues before littering this BLP with trivia, please. Collect (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not trivial; it's biographical. Adding content about Bush's "troubled" times at Phillips Academy is perfectly fine, and probably necessary per WP:NPOV , although it should be written in an encyclopedic tone. Here are some sources:

References

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/02/01/tumultuous-four-years-phillips-academy-helped-shape-jeb-bush/q6ccyHNOtP1n6kqDokMBfK/story.html
"Jeb Bush Smoked Marijuana And Was A Bully In High School, Say Former Classmates". The Huffington Post.
"Here's what it was like to get high with Jeb Bush". Business Insider. 30 January 2015.
Howard Kurtz. "How the media helped sink Mitt Romney". Fox News.
"Jeb's past vs. Jeb's future". MSNBC.
"Jeb Bush: 'I smoked marijuana' - AOL.com". AOL Article.
"Jeb Bush was a pothead". theweek.com. {{cite web}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 9 (help)
"Bold or Bully?". U.S. News & World Report.
"Inevitable: Jeb Bush inherits Mitt Romney's media coverage". Washington Times.
"Jeb Bush's troubled days at Andover". Tampa Bay Times.

Perhaps someone would like to take a stab at adding a few sentences about this obviously notable material.- Mr X 16:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There's already content there: 'Following in the footsteps of his father and older brother George, Jeb attended high school at the Massachusetts boarding school Phillips Academy. Though he received poor grades at first and occasionally smoked marijuana, Bush made the honor roll by the end of his senior year.'CFredkin (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is some content there, but it's rather poorly written. I would hope that we could come up with something a little better than a compliment sandwich. Also, I think it would be great if we could find sources to expand the early years section, as it's a little sparse. Unfortunately, my HighBeam subscription expired so I'm somewhat limited in what I would be able to find. When I have a chance I will try to come up something that might work better than the two sentences above.- Mr X 18:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bush leaks all over Florida

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeb_Bush&oldid=646545260&diff=prev

Pick a ref, any ref...

Which do you consider a reliable source? Hcobb (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually the source for the unredacted copies is ... the State of Florida. Bush released nothing not already available. "Asked for comment, a Bush spokesperson Kristy Campbell said that the emails are an “exact replica” of those on public record that are available at the Florida Department of State and are “available at anyone’s request under Chapter 119 sunshine laws.” Collect (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually

"But some messages were personal appeals that included intimate details of people’s lives, medical and employment information, and even Social Security numbers – none of which were redacted, according to BuzzFeed News, which perused eight years’ worth of emails."
— Christian Science Monitor

- Mr X 23:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

From CSM: Indeed, most of Mr. Bush’s emails came with a disclaimer: “Most written communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.” due to Florida State law. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to concise facts rather than selective quotes that simply make Bush appear righteous. By the way, the state does not bulk publish emails. Bush on the other hand did.- Mr X 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is this sentence notable? Seems trivial to me.--JOJ 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider the CSM fact to be an attempt to "make Bush appear righteous"? Or the simple statement of fact that people knew in advance that the emails were not secret? Collect (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care. Why is it notable? How does it add to the articles encyclopedic value?JOJ 00:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And roughly two thirds of the content now in our article attempts to excuse the release of the emails, while the weight given to this material in our sources is about one third. Also, writing that CSM "noted" is blatantly weasely. Thus, the POV tag.- Mr X 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Noted" is not "weasel" when dealing with a statement of simple fact. In the case of the Christian Science Monitor, they have a very high reputation for statements of fact. If you did not feel so, you would have removed the very same source from the BLP already, I trust. Collect (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. In fact, it's one of the big, bold examples in WP:EDITORIALIZING. The word we should use is "stated" or "said" or "wrote". Better yet, we should leave the quote out altogether.- Mr X 01:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Noted" is bad for opinions, good for facts. Change it to "stated" if you wish - seems ok either way from here. Collect (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Riddle Me This, How does anything in that entire paragraph have anything to do about the section it is placed into? The section is labeled 2016 Presidential Election, but this has nothing to do with the election at all. Nor is any of it, and I'm talking about the entire paragraph, notable at all. Can anyone explain why this is notable?JOJ 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The entire section is riddled with POV according to the tag. Dunno anything else. Collect (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean that you don't know its notable? Why are you trying to add something to the article in which you have no idea it's notability?JOJ 01:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

the neutral version?

I suggest:

In 2015 Bush published the emails from his governorship online, exposing private details of employees and constituents. Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws, but may included unredacted personal details like social security numbers.

was not as neutral as the current version. Collect (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not? It explains what happened, that the release was (probably) lawful, and that personal details were revealed. What more needs to be said?- Mr X 01:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It says "exposed", uses poor grammar, and the number of SSNs is unknown -- yet the implication is made that a great many had them and that they were not told the emails were public records. As the governor's Contact page explicitly tells people about the law, that omission is pretty bad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So change "exposing" to "revealing"; tweak the grammar; and leave the rest alone. " Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws," includes any disclosures on any state owned website. Mentioning that additional detail tips the POV scales way off balance.- Mr X 01:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories: