Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush

RFC: Should present position be summarized before discussing evolution of position?
For each subsection of this article, should the present position be summarized before discussing how it evolved?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Extension
This RFC was started on June 17, 2015. It was then extended by replacing the start date with a later date (June 27), to prevent the bots from messing with it while we wait. A close request was submitted on July 16. I will extend again if it isn't closed in the next day or so, to prevent the bots from messing with it while we wait.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Changed start date to 7 July.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support (I started the RfC). A standard method of writing non-fiction is to summarize conclusion and then give details.  Here, the details can be given chronologically, following a statement of the present position.  I also note that this Wikipedia article is currently structured so that, for each issue, the present position is given first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose but open to compelling arguments that support the proposal. Looking at some other similar articles like Political positions of Mitt Romney, Political positions of Barack Obama, Political positions of John McCain, and Political positions of Rick Perry it seems the convention is to use a chronological arrangement. That would also be in accord with how we write biographies. That said, I do see some value to Anythingyouwant's suggestion of listing the current position first, but I can't reconcile it with how we would list past positions. Listing everything in reverse chronological order seems like it would be add odds with similar articles, and possibly confusing to our readers.- MrX 11:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The position can be summarized and then the evolution discussed chronologically, not reverse-chronologically. Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. I just don't think it's optimal, or consistent with other articles.- MrX 15:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it wise to give prime placement to views that are the most outdated? Another problem with being strictly chronological from the start is that it creates a temptation to find the oldest, most dated, and most obsolete position with which to begin each subsection, which is potentially misleading and non-neutral.  Counterpart articles are not strictly chronological.  The Obama article has a section on economic policy that starts with “Barack Obama's current economic advisors are Alan B. Krueger and Jeffrey Liebman” (nor is that article a laundry list of issues like this one is).  In the Romney article, positions on “Energy and the environment” are only given in two discrete and separately-labelled snapshots: during his governorship and during the 2012 campaign.  For Rick Perry, “LGBT issues” covers 2005 then 2011 then 2008 then 2002.  For Hillary Clinton, the section on “Crime” starts in 2000 and ends in 1994.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you can find examples that don't follow the convention, but to answer your question: I think the most logical, neutral presentation for this type of article is chronological. In this specific case, I believe that a politician's executive or legislative actions while in office speak louder than his words during a campaign in which he trying to attain office. I think that 's idea of no firm rules may be worth considering. I would prefer to put readability and flow before strict chronological arrangement, but that view comes from a perspective of being familiar with the material, which is probably not representative of our average reader's needs.- MrX 20:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are making comparisons with other articles, we need to compare apples to apples. The examples you provided are apples to oranges. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We must digest the apples and oranges that we are given, in this case by User: MrX.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to point out that all of my examples are apples. Each is a "Political positions of ______" article where the blank is a politician who was either a Governor or US Senator before running for POTUS. As such, they are instructive for this article.- MrX 01:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the use of an unconventional sorting. This is an encyclopedic article, and we should present the information in chronological order, which is what would be expected for an unbiased narrative. Any other sorting will be confusing for our readers. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally oppose hard-and-fast rule, but open to some argument. I agree with MrX, generally. I agree with Cwobeel that chronological order is generally the clearest. However, reverse-chronological order may be valuable under some circumstances as well when the conversation is short. I think a lot has to do with the length and complexity of the section. Neutralitytalk 16:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposal is not for reverse-chronological. We can start by saying what the position is now, followed by a chronological evolution.  If we start with an obsolete position, how will readers know that it changed unless they keep reading every last word?  Why wouldn't an opponent of Bush try to dig up the oldest and most outdated position to place up top?  I don't think any opposers have addressed these concerns yet.Anythingyouwant (talk)
 * Red herring. We are taking about two or three short paragraphs, not a book. Having a chronological presentation makes sense, unless Bush has changed so much in his positions that it will require a clarification. But that is not the case here. His evolution has been quite nuanced. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of it is nuanced, some isn't. He used to support a path to citizenship, now he opposes it.  Another thing to consider is that recent (2015) positions are much clearer than older positions, because we have more sources to work with (old news often gets deleted from the Internet).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Per BlueSalix  "Prioritizing current positions would enhance the article's readability while still allowing it to be fact-inclusive." Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the subheadings of his positions only have a single statement. However, in those that are more fleshed out, it's not so easy to tell what constitutes a changed opinion, and what is exploring a different dimension of the topic without negating what was said previously. I'm not sure if that can be distinguished without a secondary source that explicitly speaks to the point. Rhoark (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - What Anythingyouwant proposes to me seems like common sense. --  Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me  18:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Comprehensibility, currency, and readability should be the priorities in any encyclopedia article, insofar as they don't obfuscate facts. Prioritizing current positions would enhance the article's readability while still allowing it to be fact-inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSalix (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Part of what it means for an article to be "encyclopedic" is that it makes a concerted effort to clearly set out current views and information about the article subject. Even if we were talking about a history subsection, it would still make sense to front-load material about the "current state of affairs", for lack of a better description.  Also as a general matter I agree with User:Rhoark that we should avoid unsourced characterizations of whether a view represents a change or evolution from previous positions.  Explanatory gaps are to be avoided, but are not a great reason to fudge WP:V. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the rationale of Anythingyouwant, BlueSalix, & Factchecker_atyourservice. Present position stated first is highly practical and provides an at-a-glance kind of readability, which is particularly helpful to readers those who merely "skim" the article.--JayJasper (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Current position should be summarized at beginning of section with chronology to follow.CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: my thoughts second what Neutrality said above. These sorts of things are simply a matter of taste and visual + mental cohesion; sources might generally differ in format, and Wikipedia is its own little world with regards to encyclopaedias. The best way of deciding this would be seeing two versions of the article and voting on which we'd prefer as best for readers in general. Someone will always have issues with the way stuff is written as well, so I reckon: be bold and if anyone opposes the changes, then we'll decide on what sounds best specifically, as a community. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
A standard method of writing non-fiction is to begin by briefly stating the conclusion, and then having a more detailed explanation of where it comes from. This helps readers quickly find what they're looking for, and helps them understand better, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that readers are looking for the latest position on a topic. But you can equally assume that readers want to learn about the evolution of his political positions, and for that you need a chronological order. I say use the latter as per conventions in biographies. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to a chronological order, following an initial statement of the present position. So you have the best of both worlds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sounds like Anythingyouwant's proposal is a win-win for everyone. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to mention that the particular edit that motivated this RFC is here. It involved putting up top a position that has clearly changed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

One possible way to resolve this is to use a narrative similar to what we have in the main article in the Immigration sub section: After previously supporting comprehensive immigration reform that could take either the path to citizenship or a path to legalization, in 2015, Bush took the position that people in the United States illegally should have a path to legal status, but not a path to citizenship. That type of narration/format gives the correct context and provides readers with an understanding on the evolution of Bush's position. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Note to closer: For each subsection of this article, the present position is currently summarized before discussing how it evolved. If there is no consensus to change this status quo then it apparently should not be changed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reminder
Bush only announced he is running for President a few days ago. Please avoid prefacing content with "During his 2015 presidential campaign" or other such, for comments he made prior to his announcement. This way it will be factually accurate and help differentiate from any policy positions he may bring forth as a candidate. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate change
The bit about Bush's views contradicting the scientific consensus needs to be removed. I realise that this claim is made in the Guardian article, but it is clear that they have confused two very different things. The IPCC position cited in the article is that it is certain that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming. But Bush's comments relate to this second aspect: the percentage of human contribution. StAnselm (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have recast the sentence to hew closer to the source. Neutralitytalk 20:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But the problem is the source - it seems to have totally misinterpreted the relationship between Bush's statement at the IPCC position. It may well be that Bush disagrees with the IPCC here, but that isn't demonstrated in the article. The IPCC is definite that global warming is caused by human activity - that was what the "unequivocal" thing referred to - but the extent to which that is the case is a different matter. In other words, "human activity is very likely causing most of the rise in temperatures" - Bush's comments seem to be about the "most" bit (60%? 70%? 80%?), but The Guardian has interpreted them to be about the "likely" bit. Regardless of what newspaper reports it, that sort of misinterpretation shouldn't be in a BLP in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a reliable source. You say that you think the reporting was flawed (is a "misinterpretation"). As far as I can tell, the Guardian has neither retracted its article, nor issued some sort of correction. The belief that the reporting is bad is a rather subjective view. Nevertheless, I will see if I can find another another way to recast the sentence. Neutralitytalk 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Background
I tend to agree with User:Cwobeel that these statements aren't useful and are WP:undue at the top of the article.CFredkin (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just no. First of all, I have no idea what is happening over on the political positions of Hillary Clinton page, as I have not worked on that page. Furthermore, you removed an entire section of well-sourced content that describes Jeb Bush's overall political stance - which is the entire subject of the article. The Hillary diff you linked to involves a single snippet standing alone, not in the context of an overview of many different sources.
 * Finally, your cite to "undue" is just bizarre. You seem to be mistaking it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * I am restoring this amply-sourced and neutrally worded section. I would be more than happy to participate in an RFC should you continue to object. Neutralitytalk 03:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your first claim above is empirically false. You've edited both articles, and I'm not sure how you can justify maintaining a different set of standards for each article.
 * A collection of cherry-picked inflammatory quotes from Bush that are over 20 years old and multiple opinions from pundits do not belong at the top of the article, and it gives them WP:undue weight to insert them there.
 * Per WP:BRD, you should seek consensus here, instead of continuing to restore the content.CFredkin (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) I have not substantially worked on the Hillary article (I don't consider it substantial work to add a word or two). (2) As I explained above, your analogy to the Hillary article is totally off point. The Hillary material was a single, out-of-context snippet, and it was in the lead section. Here, all the material is part of a cogent whole and is in its own section, not the lead. (3) None of the people quoted in the "overall" section are "pundits" unless you use the broadest definition. By my count, we have 3 college professors, 1 longtime journalist (political editor), 1 Republican political strategist, and 1 statistician. (4) This leads into why the cite to "undue" is so bizarre, given that we have multiple opinions. If we relied on just one party's opinion&mdash;and if we quoted extensively from that party's opinion&mdash;then undue weight might be a concern. Here, we have just the reverse: we briefly cite from multiple reliable sources to get a complete picture. (5) You complain of "inflammatory" content yet do not identify what, if anything, you find inflammatory in the section you removed. Neutralitytalk 03:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that you have reverted a second time, I will start an RfC, below. Neutralitytalk 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Abortion
This subjective description of Bush's actions as governor is WP:undue, as the writer (for Cleveland.com) is not notable as a source on the subject.CFredkin (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you (and the cite to undue is an incorrect application of the policy), but in the interests of coming to consensus and avoiding minor quibbling I will not pursue the point. Neutralitytalk 03:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Section on overall political stance
Question presented: Should this section on Bush's overall political stance be removed or included? Neutralitytalk 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Support inclusion. First, disclosure: I contributed to this section (along with others). The entire section deals directly with the subject matter of the article: Jeb Bush's political positions. It is thoroughly cited to multiple, independent, reliable sources. It does not dwell on any single source: it includes about  one sentence from the opinions of a handful of different sources, including 2 college professors, 1 statistician (Nate Silver, who did an empirical analysis), 2 journalists, and one widely-known political consultant (Steve Schmidt). Finally, it includes minority views in a short paragraph at the end. In my opinion, to omit this would do a disservice to readers. Neutralitytalk 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Similar content has been removed from the corresponding article for  Hillary Clinton.  Among the 3 possible sources of content for articles on political positions of politicans, I believe their relevance and priority could be ranked as follows: 1) actions by the corresponding politician, 2) statements by the politician regarding his/her stances, and 3) opinions by 3rd parties on his/her stances.  Items from category 3 and 20-year-old gotcha quotes from the politician (which are also included in your proposed content) don't belong at the top of the article.  And we definitely shouldn't have different standards for the corresponding articles for Bush and Clinton.CFredkin (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not removed from the Clinton article. It was moved from the lead to the Economics section . -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What, specifically, are you referring to when you write "gotcha quotes"? Because this section, the one under discussion, quotes Bush just once, and you removed this section in its entirety. If you're referring to the 1994 self-description, it's not a "gotcha" - it's what Bush himself described himself as. It's clearly relevant to the political positions of Jeb Bush because it's an overall self-description, and would naturally go in an overview section rather than a specific issue topic header. Second, as to the Hillary content: there's no comparison. The Hillary piece was an out-of-context snippet from a single source in the lead section. This section, by contrast, has a broader perspective (multiple sources) and is not in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 04:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If what you principally object to is the inclusion of the 1994 self-description material, then I'd gladly see a more recent self-description added (e.g., here, Bush describes himself as a "practicing, reform-minded conservative"). I have no problem with adding something like that, and if it will help break this logjam I'd be happy to do it and we can avoid the RfC altogether. But I don't think there is any justification for eliminating the entire section, nor do I think that the 1994 stuff is irrelevant. Neutralitytalk 04:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More third party opinions and gotcha quotes from multiple sources can be added to the top of the article on Hillary. That's not the point.  In addition, the edit you're trying to make is at the top of the content for the article.  The content which has been removed from the lede of Hillary's article could be moved to the top of the main content section and my point would still stand.  Also, the following 3 quotes you added from Bush are over 20 years old and are definitely cherry picked to be sensational.  More recent, less sensational quotes by Bush about himself are available:
 * "In his 1994 race, Bush 'called himself a 'head-banging conservative,' talked about 'blowing up' state agencies, and said he wanted to 'club this government into submission.''"CFredkin (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I think this is recentism at work. For subjects with long careers, their early work deserves coverage. The fact that Woody Allen did Midnight in Paris (2011) does not mean that Annie Hall (1977) is irrelevant. The same is true here. Like someone (I think ) said some time ago, we're not a voters' guide, we're an encyclopedia. That means covering the early work (the evolution over time), and not just the latest comments.
 * But, looking to break the logjam: If we were to include a more recent self-description (like the one from earlier this year: "I would describe myself as a practicing, reform-minded conservative"), would that make this section acceptable to you? I think we may be able to work something out. Neutralitytalk 04:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (FYI, I am making this an informal comment section (rather than a "formal") RfC, at Anythingyouwant's suggestion, because we already have one going on this article on a different topic upthread, but more importantly because we may no longer have need for an RfC if you accept my compromise proposal). Neutralitytalk 04:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it may be time to get out that spotlight that Commissioner Gordon shines up on the clouds to summon User:Wasted Time R whom we should implore to write a political positions summary like the one he wrote for the John McCain article back when he (WTR) was still in middle age.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think if we remove the 20+ year-old quotes from Bush and the quote from Steve Schmidt (as an outlier), then I can probably live with the rest of the content.CFredkin (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidently, WTR does not pay as much attention to clouds as Batman does. Anyway, I think a section like this ought to use standard sources like The American Conservative Union rating,  the Americans for Democratic Action rating, the National Journal rating, and the Almanac of American Politics.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are ideal sources, but the ACU, ADA, and National Journal rankings rely on congressional voting records. Jeb Bush has never served in Congress, so he would not have a score. In terms of empirical analysis, Nate Silver's is the best thing out there, I think. Neutralitytalk 17:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Having been pinged, I have to say I don't know much more about Jeb Bush than I do about Bruce Wayne. Neutrality is right that empirical analysis is tougher for people outside of Congress.  However, here is a story on the Bonica CFscores analysis that Silver mentions; read the whole thing, it's pretty interesting, although I'm not completely sold on it.  I've always like the National Journal ratings the best, because they do it in three axes: economic, social, foreign.  Otherwise you misrepresent people like Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, and for that matter Hillary.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your view, WTR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of the various viewpoints for NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * why do you consider these statements to be be "gotcha"? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I made some edits/reorganizing adds. I moved Bush's comments about privatization from the "overall" section to a new section on public employees and privatization. I also added an updated Bush description from 2015, discussed above. This may resolve CFredkin's concerns. I'm keeping the Bush's 1994 comment and the Steve Schmidt quote because there is no discernible reason to exclude them.
 * I'm sure that improvements can be made, but I think this is a good step forward. Neutralitytalk 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. Had the BLP subject been a legislator, then it would be straightforward to include ratings based upon his legislative record. However, that is not the case here. The American Conservative Union, the Americans for Democratic Action, and the National Journal apparently have not rated Jeb Bush, and their silence speaks volumes. It's impractical to do in a consistent and neutral formulaic manner, whereas it's very practical to state where he stands on each issue. This makes it all the more useful to start each issue section with a summary of his current view, before saying how that view evolved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Brief note re: terminology
To quickly express my view: I think "right to die" is perfectly fine language here. I would agree that something like "death with dignity" would be POV, and something like "assisted suicide" and "euthanasia" would be POV as well, in the opposite direction. But "right to die" is fairly evenhanded. If you look through Google Books, you'll see lots of scholarly or otherwise non-advocacy type works discussing the issue under that term: for example, The Right to Die: Public Controversy, Private Matter (1993) ("Provides an objective, informative look at the controversial issue of the right to die, discussing both sides of the argument...") and The Right to Die: The Law of End-of-life Decisionmaking (3rd ed. 2003) (a legal treatise for lawyers and law students). I think this shows that this term is pretty neutral in context. It's also way more specific than "end-of-life issues" (which is way more vague and somewhat euphemistic). Neutralitytalk 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, "right to die" is not neutral at all - it is inherently POV - just as POV as "die with dignity". Browsing through the net (or Google Books) is not a way to determine whether it is POV, not even by looking supposedly neutral-objective books (if such existed). They way to determine neutrality is to find a wording that is tolerable to both sides of a controversy.
 * The term suggests that there is a "right to die" that is denied to anyone. That already is an extreme point of view. Now, everybody has the right to refuse treatment and unless there is an imminent threat to the patient's life a doctor may not give a treatment without consent. Consent of that person, either expressed by that person or, if decapacitated, by a living will. Not by somebody else.
 * An actual "right to die" isn't denied to anyone. However, case like Terri Schiavo illustrate that the term is sometimes misused as "right to let somebody starve who never wanted to starve". Let's keep in mind that this case was the fight between that woman's husband, who was by then was engaged with another woman, to withhold nutrition from his brain-damaged wife, and her family, who tried to keep up the nutrition. It was not about subjecting the woman to special medical procedures, not about switching off breathing machines or the like.
 * As for the other terms, "euthanasia" - though fitting IMHO - is a bit POVy. "Assisted suicide" would be factually incorrect.
 * Test question, Mr Neutrality: Can I rename the section "abortion" to "right to life"? Str1977 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You assert it's "inherently POV" - but you have no support for this claim other than your own musings on the affair. And then you say that the terms used in books don't matter. This is Ipse dixit.
 * First: we follow the sources on Wiki - and the sources show that this term is used as an overall rubric and has no particular political valence. Here's a NY Times feature entitled Expanding the Right to Die featuring six panelists on both sides of the question.
 * Second: "end-of-life" issues is totally unacceptable because it is vague and unclear, as I said above. "End of life" issues could mean Medicaid planning, hospice, wills, living trusts, funeral planning, palliative care, etc. Here, the section does not discuss "end of life issues" but a single narrow issue within it: the right to die. You've never addressed this point.
 * Third: compare to Right to be forgotten - not everyone agrees that such a right exists. Yet the debate is commonly phrased in those terms. The same is true here. Neutralitytalk 13:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. I do NOT say that terms in books don't matter - only that using them to ascertain neutrality doesn't work. You say "follow the sources" - but source a) don't need to be neutral (a NYT feature surely isn't) and b) your sources are not about the subject (Jeb Bush's position on).
 * 2. You complain that "end-of-life" issues is vague. I'm not married to this wording but it still better than POV pushing. Also "right to die", while out of line in regard to the Terri Schiavo case is also vague as the paragraph concerns itself entirely with that case.
 * 3. WP:OTHERTHINGS exist. Whether it is right or not is a different questions.
 * Str1977 (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is silliness. Yes, it is easy to assess neutrality by reference to standard sources. If term X is consistently used only by activist groups on one side of an issue, and term Y is used only by activists on the other side, and term Z is used only by scholars, the media, etc., then yes, term Z is the neutral one, and the one you should use.
 * But I will accept "Terri Schiavo case" (or "Terri Schiavo affair"). In fact, upon coming here to check the article, I had planned to propose that as a solution, so we can all move on. Neutralitytalk 19:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reversion to Abortion
User:Neutrality, what's the rationale for this reversion?CFredkin (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clearly explained in Anythingyouwant's edit summary, above. He is apparently under some sort of Arbcom topic restrictions, and so to avoid violating those restrictions he went back to the version before he touched it, leaving the field up to other editors as to whether to restore his edits. His previous edits, as amended by me, were fine, hence my edit. Anythingyouwant does not object. So this is a purely technical/procedural issue, and not a dispute as to substance. Neutralitytalk 05:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Tax and budget issues
Re this edit removing two sentences at the end of the tax and budget section - I don't what is objectionable in the slightest here. Both sentences are well-sourced (one to the Tax Foundation/WSJ/Time, another to WaPo); both are neutrally phrased; and the weight is proportional (a few sentences in the context of a long article). I've restored the language.

To elaborate a bit more: The first sentence is relevant/useful as demonstrating the relative effects of the plan: who are the major beneficiaries, and to what extent will they benefit/not benefit. The second sentence is relevant/useful because it draws a helpful historical parallel: i.e., that Jeb's plan is similar to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. That's been pointed out by a number of sources (e.g., Vox, NYT, HuffPo, et al.). Neutralitytalk 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are the reasons for the edit:
 * 1) The content in that paragraph places undue emphasis on the impact of the tax proposal on high income taxypayers.
 * 2) The specific statement re Tax Foundation appears to have been cherry picked by the writer of the WSJ article. It doesn't even appear in the summary paragraph of the actual Tax Foundation analysis referenced. And so I think it mis-represents the overall findings by Tax Foundation.
 * 3) The Time article added as a source for the Tax Foundation statement doesn't even mention the statement. (It's a better source for the previous sentence.) In fact the first paragraph of the Time article references the impact of the tax proposal on other non high-income taxpayers (which is not referenced here).
 * 4) The statement regarding "George W. Bush Tax cuts with more exclamation points" is just a headline which doesn't communicate anything. Also I believe it's irrelevent.  This article is about Jeb's positions, not George's.CFredkin (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources largely place the same emphasis on the impact of the tax proposal on high income taxpayers as this article does. While it may appear unfair to some that the Tax Foundation's analysis has been cherry picked by sources, that's what we have to work with. We're not allowed to do our own cherry picking of the primary source. Here's another source that touches on the two main results of Bush's proposal: that it will add to the deficit and that it will benefit the most wealthy (including himself). - MrX 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We may not be able to do our own cherry picking of the primary source, but we also don't have to use statements from secondary sources which don't accurately reflect the primary source.CFredkin (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Also I believe the para will provide a proportional emphasis on the impact to high-income taxpayers without the content which I'm disputing.CFredkin (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article says:
 * Tax foundation says:
 * Where exactly is the inaccuracy? - MrX 22:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, that statement was cherry picked from the details of the analysis. It's not mentioned in the "Key Findings" summary section of the analysis.CFredkin (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)  My point is that it's an undue reflection of the analysis.  The fact that we can find a reliable source that cherry picks the statement from the analysis doesn't mean it needs to be included in this article.CFredkin (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was or maybe it wasn't, but I'm afraid you're quarrel is with the journalists that did the research and wrote the articles. It's not Wikipedia's province. - MrX 22:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX's point above. We can critique the media's emphasis all we want, but I think it is reasonable of us to follow the (reliable) sources. Neutralitytalk 23:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was or maybe it wasn't, but I'm afraid you're quarrel is with the journalists that did the research and wrote the articles. It's not Wikipedia's province. - MrX 22:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX's point above. We can critique the media's emphasis all we want, but I think it is reasonable of us to follow the (reliable) sources. Neutralitytalk 23:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight... a statement from a Bush spokesman from a reliable source is not ok, but a cherry picked statement that appears to be an undue mis-representation of analysis by Tax Foundation must be included because it's from a reliable source? Also, you've not even come close to addressing all the concerns I outlined above.CFredkin (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A Bush spokesman is the last person we should turn to for objective analysis of Bush's tax plan. The rest of your comment is begging the question. I have responded to all your points, except for #4 which refers to content not found in the article.- MrX 19:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoting a spokesman is very much like quoting the candidate himself; we do that a lot, which is fine since they are competent to say what their political positions are. As to this particular quote, much of the same material is alternatively available from the mouths of reporters (e.g. search the Wikipedia article for "In percentage reduction in taxes, it’s hard to beat the 100% that married couples making $38,600 would get").Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed a blanket statement referencing a comparison with George's tax cuts. Reiterating my statement above, this article is about Jeb's positions, not George's.  Also 2 of the 3 sources provided don't support the statement.CFredkin (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources:
 * High earners were hit with a large tax increase in 2013, because of the partial expiration of the George W. Bush tax cuts and new taxes in the Affordable Care Act. Jeb Bush’s tax plan would lower the tax burden on the wealthiest to near the levels that prevailed under his brother.


 * As George W. Bush promised in his sales pitch for tax cuts, Jeb Bush promises that all will benefit from huge economic growth from his agenda,” CAP’s director for fiscal policy Harry Stein writes in an analysis that will be released Friday and obtained first by TIME. “But we already know how things turned out after the first Bush tax cuts: federal budget surpluses turned into massive deficits and instead of widespread economic growth we got the Great Recession.But Jeb Bush’s plan isn’t exactly like his brother’s effort. It actually goes further in terms of simplifying the tax code and repealing popular deductions.

... so the attempt to remove that material, because it was sourced to the HuffPo is lazy attempt. It took me less than 30 seconds to find these sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How do the above statements support the following in the article: "The plan was described as "broadly similar" to George W. Bush tax cuts."?CFredkin (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Also, an objection was raised regarding using statements from CAP as a source when a previous version of the sentence was removed by another editor.CFredkin (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't split hairs. You can easily edit the article to include a statement regarding the tax cuts proposed by Jeb based on these sources. Maybe try WP:ENEMY? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cwobeel here. There are ample, ample sources out there for the comparison between Jeb's proposal and the GWB proposals. I've gone back and found some, and I've also added a bit (cited to WaPo and elsewhere) that mentions briefly that Jeb's plan is similar to Romney's.
 * As to the idea that "this article is about Jeb so we shouldn't mention anyone else" &mdash; that is unpersuasive in the extreme. Yes, the focus is on Jeb's positions, but this is an encyclopedia and we ought to put things into historical context where supported by the sources. That is exactly what we've done, in two short sentences. There is zero consensus to excise that relevant and helpful and well-sourced information from this article. Neutralitytalk 00:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources provided for the comparison with Mitt's proposal both include fairly lengthy discussions regarding the differences between them as well. And all 3 articles provided as sources for the comparison with Bush's tax plan are extremely polemical.  Further, neither Mitt nor George are running for president.  This content is inappropriate here.CFredkin (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bush published a blog post advocating for increased government surveillance
I object to this thrice-repeated edit which replaced
 * "In September 2015, Bush published a blog post advocating for increased government surveillance, writing that "we must stop demonizing" the NSA and Cyber Command (CISA) because they "are on the front lines of defending the United States against cyberthreats."

with


 * "In September 2015, Bush published a blog post advocating for the proposed Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), and for increased government surveillance, writing that "we must stop demonizing" the NSA and Cyber Command (CISA) because they "are on the front lines of defending the United States against cyberthreats"."

Which is not only redundant, but misrepresent the source, which says:


 * "In a lengthy post detailing his plans today, the former governor advocated for increased government surveillance, writing, “The National Security Agency and Cyber Command are on the front lines of defending the United States against cyberthreats. We must stop demonizing these quiet intelligence professionals and start giving them the tools they need.”"

Can we not obfuscate this very clear third-party report that Bush advocates for increased government surveillance.- MrX 13:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC) The cited source says: Meanwhile, privacy experts have panned proposed legislation like the CISA Security Bill, insisting that it creates too many surveillance loopholes for the government. Bush, on the other hand, argues in his new proposal that the President should push Senate Democrats who oppose the bill “to allow this bill to come to the Senate floor for a vote." I didn't misrepresent anything whatsoever. Why do you insist upon removing CISA from this Wikipedia article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "CISA" is the 25th word in the sentence that you reverted. How many times in one sentence does it need to be occur?- MrX 14:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my last edit for the day at the present article (I made this edit eleven minutes before you started this talk page section). CISA only occurs once in the Wikipedia article.  Why do you want to omit the full name of CISA?  Do you think it's wise to give acronyms without saying what they stand for?  It stands for Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act.  Why are you trying to omit this wikilink from this Wikipedia article?  Repeatedly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First, (CISA) is not a substitute for United States Cyber Command. Second, the article doesn't say anything about "Bush publish[ing] a blog post advocating for the proposed Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)" at all. So it's simply an unsourced bit of original research.- MrX 14:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course "CISA" is not a substitute for United States Cyber Command. No one is disputing that. And it seems perfectly clear from the cited source that Bush supports CISA: Meanwhile, privacy experts have panned proposed legislation like the CISA Security Bill, insisting that it creates too many surveillance loopholes for the government. Bush, on the other hand, argues in his new proposal that the President should push Senate Democrats who oppose the bill “to allow this bill to come to the Senate floor for a vote." If you would like a further source confirming Bush's support for CISA, then please ask, and I would be glad to provide one or two, or however many you would like within reason.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The source clearly references the fact that Bush's blog post was in support of CISA, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the statement.CFredkin (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I showed the exact quotes from the source. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Also, what was wrong with the version you just bulk removed with other content? It was a reasonable compromise that included CISA. In fact, the very last sentence of the paragraph that you removed says "In the same blog post, Bush argued in favor of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)." Please help me understand why you removed this. - MrX 03:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry, missed the second sentence.CFredkin (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * np. It happens to all of us. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Wired article makes a vague statement about government surveillance. The USA Today article provides more specifics about the plan. I support the latter.CFredkin (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC) I've separated the statements to avoid WP:synth.CFredkin (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand why CFredkin has reverted the same content four times in past 24 hours, in spite of my good faith efforts to accommodate your concerns by altering wording. As I have adequately shown above, the passage "Bush published a blog post advocating for increased government surveillance..." is almost verbatim what Wired wrote, "In a lengthy post detailing his plans today, the former governor advocated for increased government surveillance...". This content is corroborated by other sources such as San Jose Mercury News, The Hill, Engadget, and Politico. In response to the comment above, I don't understand what is "vague" about "advocated for increased government surveillance". It seems very clear to me.- MrX 16:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Advocate for increased government surveillance
 * MrX, you started this section with baseless charges against me, and you are continuing in the same vein as to CFredkin, it seems. How is adding a sentence, without deleting anything, a revert?  Please explain or desist.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * They're not baseless, and they're really not charges, but thank you for acknowledging that you were edit warring over the same content. I did not say that the diff in your comment above was a revert. The link showing CFredkin's last four edits obviously did not include that edit at the time I created the link.


 * The best way forward it to construct wording that represents the sources, and accommodates different editor view points. In other words make a proposal in the spirit of compromise; don't just delete material because you find it critical of the subject. (Also, please, can we get the indents right?)- MrX 16:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am eagerly awaiting a sentence from you, MrX that is not erroneous. You say, "The link showing CFredkin's last four edits obviously did not include that edit at the time I created the link." Actually, that edit was at 16:03 and your link was presented to us at 16:08.  Moreover, my comment at 16:20 did not acknowledge anything.  Let us try to stick with reality here, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was an accident. Does it occur to you that CFredkin made the edit while I was posting the comment? Are you saying that the substance of what I said is not true: that CFredkin reverted material four times in 24 hours? [Friendly reminder: For indents, count the number of colons in the comment that you are responding to and add one colon to your reply. If the previous comment looks like this ":::Ipsum Lorem", then your reply should look like this "::::Dolor Sit Amet".] - MrX 18:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think it's important that I not use an extra colon, then I will stop doing that. I really don't feel like going back and analyzing CFredkin's edits again, but if he accidentally reverted too much then of course I would not favor that, any more than I favor your own accidents.  How about we relax for a few hours, watch the debates, and then come back tomorrow with renewed diligence and collegiality?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 👍 Sounds like a good plan. I'm looking forward to the debate.- MrX 18:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The first 3 sources linked above support the following earlier statement which is already in the article: In August 2015, Bush said that he favored expanded government surveillance of Americans to "make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst."  The Politico article says nothing about increased government surveillance.CFredkin (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the only information I can find in the Wired article to support its assertion that Bush's plan advocates for increased government surveillance is his support for CISA. So I think it makes sense for the claim to follow the CISA reference, rather than being combined with information from another source.CFredkin (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Politico was the weaker of the corroborating sources, but certainly speaks to the CISA legislation. - MrX 16:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to say the plan would increase government surveillance, I think we should explain how. However combining 2 sources to explain how, as the article currently does, is WP:synth. The Wired article, which makes the claim about government surveillance, states: "Meanwhile, privacy experts have panned proposed legislation like the CISA Security Bill, insisting that it creates too many surveillance loopholes for the government." Therefore I propose the following language:


 * "In September 2015, Bush published a five-point cybersecurity plan that would establish a "command focus" on Internet security. The plan calls for increased funding, greater cooperation internationally and between the public and private sectors, and more government accountability to combat Internet security threats.[34] Bush also reiterated his support for the NSA and argued in favor of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA).[35] Privacy experts believe the proposed legislation includes loopholes which could be used to increase government surveillance."CFredkin (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that that's a fair representation of the source which says "privacy experts have panned proposed legislation like the CISA Security Bill, insisting that it creates too many surveillance loopholes for the government." The Wired reporter has concluded that "the former governor advocated for increased government surveillance". That seems to be a reasonable conclusion based on other sources. I favor the current wording, which seems very neutral to me:


 * - MrX 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The current wording violates WP:synth. You can't combine a statement from Wired regarding increased government surveillance and a statement from USA Today regarding some elements of Bush's proposal to make a statement saying that the elements referenced in USA Today increase government surveillance.  The Wired article clearly ties increased government surveillance to the CISA proposal.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition the article already states that Bush advocates increased government surveillance. It's undue to keep repeating that.  Instead we should be focused on provided examples to support the stance, which I believe my proposal does.CFredkin (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I just edited to insert the proposed language, but accidentally clicked "Save Page" before adding an edit comment to that effect.CFredkin (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You ignored my objection and for the fifth time removed "advocates for more government surveillance", contrary to what the source says. You didn't even try to fix the alleged WP:SYNTH problem (which I don't believe exists). You simply removed critical content from the article, even after you were warned about edit warring mere hours ago. I'm at a loss... - MrX 22:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He inserted this: "Privacy experts believe the proposed legislation includes loopholes which could be used to increase government surveillance.[35]" What critical content is gone?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My proposal does fix the synth problem. You wait hours to respond to my concerns. Then almost as soon as I make the edit you criticize me for doing so.  And you still haven't addressed my concerns.  I"m the one who's at a loss.CFredkin (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You obvious do not want this article to mention that Bush published a blog post advocating for increased government surveillance, and it's fine to have that opinion. It's not fine to revert that content four times, make a proposal that I did comment on, then revert a firth time because you weren't satisfied with how quickly I responded. We are talking about a couple of hours after all. If you notice from my contribution log, I was creating a poll at Carly Fiorina, putting out a flame war, contacting WMF legal, and fighting vandalism.- MrX 23:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you obviously want to cherry pick statements from sources in order to justify inserting them multiple times in this article (regardless of policies re WP:undue and WP:synth).  Just because a source makes an inflammatory statement about Bush, doesn't mean it should be referenced here.  Also, I raised the issue of synth 32 hours ago.CFredkin (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Political positions of Bush's opponents
The present Wikipedia article ought to describe the subject's political positions as described by neutral, reliable sources. If there's a dispute about what his position is, then we can provide competing views from journalists about it. But this is not the place to describe the political views of his opponents that conflict or attack the subject's views. Wikipedia has lots and lots of Wikipedia articles about the political views of one person or another, and they generally do not become fora for opposing views.

I'm sure that the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) is a fine upstanding organization, but it is not neutral or reliable, and is generally considered to be a left-wing organization. So, I don't think it's an appropriate source for the present article even if it's being quoted by a news article that is describing opposition to Bush's political views. Let's describe his views, without getting into positions about the wisdom of his views, or about what their effects might be.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I realize that Citizens for Tax Justice is considered a left-leaning source (except perhaps by Ronald Reagan, one of our more liberal presidents). However, "don't shoot the messenger" would seem to apply. For bare, undisputed facts that have been cited by other reliable sources, with attribution, I don't see how the sentence I added is anything but neutral. I have no objection to removing CTJ as a (primary) source, since the content rest on the other two independent sources.- MrX 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Coal-fired plants
In this edit I removed a weasel-worded reference to "critics" in a statement not verified by the cited references. The first Hill reference states that a second Hill article verifies the assertion, but the second article provides no such verification. Thus we're left with an unverified and ill-defined reference to unnamed and unenumerated "critics". This is inadequate sourcing for an article about a candidate's views on a controversial subject. If there is an RS which does in fact make that statement in the context of discussing Bush's views and positions, please add that to the article. In the meanwhile, the text should not have been restored and should again be removed. The burden is on the editor who wishes to add content, and this text fails verification. SPECIFICO talk  00:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The source provided states: "Bush's proposal targets the EPA's carbon rules for power plants that seek to reduce emissions from the power sector by 32 percent. That rule, critics say, is likely to force many coal plants out of business, reports The Hill's Tim Cama."  The Hill article by Tim Cama states: "The carbon limits seek to slash the power sector’s greenhouse gas output 32 percent, largely through improving or shutting down coal-fired power plants."
 * That seems reasonably sourced to me.CFredkin (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you feel that verifies that there are "critics" who say the rule is "likely to force many coal plants out of business" -- What text in the cited sources makes that statement? Who are the critics?  The text fails verification.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've provided the specific text from the source above. Presumably the critics are those who are critical of the regulation.CFredkin (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not respond to my question. The first Hill article cites the second one, written by Cara.  The second one does not make the statement attributed to it in the first one.  Neither of them verifies the text in the article.  Please review WP:V.   The burden is on you. If you believe this text belongs in the article, please find an RS which supports it.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already demonstrated above that the statement is very well sourced. You're just being tendentious.CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Crime and criminal justice: deletion of sentence
I am looking to discuss the following portion of the crime and criminal justice section of the article:

"In 2002, Bush opposed a Florida ballot measure that would have allowed nonviolent drug offenders to enter treatment programs instead of prison.[52] Bush's then-24-year-old daughter had been arrested the same year on drug-related charges and underwent treatment.[52]"

I want to delete the second sentence of the above part of the article for two main reasons:

1. It is not relevant enough to this Wikipedia article. This article is about the political positions of Jeb Bush. I understand why the first sentence of the above quotation is included. It gives an example of a decision he made in his political career that enlightens readers on his views of a particular domestic issue. Because Bush "opposed a Florida ballot measure that would have allowed nonviolent drug offenders to enter treatment programs instead of prison", the reader starts to understand that Bush's viewpoints are those of someone who probably emphasizes prison time over treatment programs as a solution to drug crimes. That tells the reader something meaningful about Bush's political viewpoints. However, I do not believe the second sentence tells the reader much about his viewpoints. It tells the reader that Bush's daughter was arrested on drug-related charges and underwent treatment the same year that Bush opposed that ballot measure. But, what does that tell readers about Bush's viewpoints on prison time and treatment programs for drug crimes? The sentence tells readers about a drug-related crime his adult daughter committed in her personal life, not anything that Bush himself said or did in his career as a politician. Now, I'm not saying that the personal life and personal decisions of a politician's adult child can never say something about or affect the politician's viewpoints. But, I do think there is enough distance between the two so that a clear connection would need to be made in order for the second sentence to be relevant.

2. It makes the article less neutral. Because the second sentence is not relevant enough to Bush's viewpoints, what is its purpose? When I read the first sentence, I start to understand Bush's viewpoints on drug-related crimes and treatment of offenders. When I read the second, I simply feel that the article is trying to tell me that Bush's opposition to the Florida ballot measure is unfair and hypocritical. The reader might very well think: "Bush doesn't support treatment programs for drug offenders, but yet his daughter commits a drug-related crime and gets treatment? That situation isn't fair, and Bush is a hypocrite for opposing treatment programs that his daughter has used." The problem is that it's not a Wikipedia article's place to evaluate fairness or imply hypocrisy. By including this second sentence, it seems like the article is trying to lead the reader to a conclusion about Jeb Bush's character based on the humiliating contrast between his viewpoints and the personal life of his daughter.

Let me now address the reason that was given by two other editors (Neutrality and MrX) for undoing my previous deletions of the second sentence about Bush's daughter. The main reason given was that "this was noted in a straight-news story from a reliable source." It's important for me to mention that I am not disputing the accuracy of the second sentence or the reliability of the source that was cited for it. I am disputing the relevance of the sentence and the neutrality problems it poses for this specific Wikipedia article. News articles are different than encyclopedia articles, and so just because a piece content taken from a news source is accurate or the source itself is considered reliable, this doesn't mean that the context in which it is used in the enclyclopedia article is proper, relevant, or neutral.

I would appreciate it if the editors who oppose my proposal to delete the second sentence could give their reasons for opposition and that editors who agree with me could voice their support. Jpepin2009 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The two things are included in the same article, so the juxtaposition was thought to be worthy of note by reliable sources. If our text was cited to two different sources - Source X for the policy and Source Y for the daughter - then I would agree with you, because that would be impermissible synthesis. But where the reliable sources speak of the two things in conjunction, then there is no problem with including them together - and indeed we should do so in the context of a comprehensive article.
 * As for hypocrisy - that's for the reader to decide. If people wanted to draw that from the text, then perhaps it would be fair to do so. The fact that they may think that is no reason to take it out, though. Not everything that reflects badly upon a subject is a violation of NPOV. Neutralitytalk 01:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The relationship between his daughter's drug rehab and his opposition to the legislation was noted by the cited source. Ideally, I would like to see more sources that make the connection. The section really needs to be updated because Bush, while campaigning, has spoke about his daughter's drug problems and the need to help nonviolent [drug] offenders receive treatment. .- MrX 01:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point. I've updated with cites to those. Neutralitytalk 03:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the section looks better, now that you have added the content on how Bush spoke about his daughter's addiction during his 2016 campaign. I would say that what you added was necessary to make a clear connection between his daughter's drug use and his political views and behavior. That addresses the relevance issue pretty directly. I still think that there are some neutrality issues, but I'm not going to ask for anymore changes or conduct anymore changes on this matter myself. I would like to warn both of you, however, that in reading this "talk" page and looking at the history of edits, I'm seeing a troubling pattern of other editors complaining about neutrality issues and wording, only to be shot down by either of you. I'm making a completely informal request that other editors who read this talk page really keep an eye out for neutrality issues on this Wikipedia article and monitor the conduct of editors who are watching it closely and potentially being overprotective and unreasonable in guarding problematic edits. Jpepin2009 (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)