This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jenna Bush Hager article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jenna Bush Hager. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jenna Bush Hager at the Reference desk. |
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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Granted, Jenna's wedding is all over the news this weekend, but surely it shouldn't merit 2 whole sentences in her 5-sentence-long introduction paragraph. Her name has been changed to reflect her married status, and there's a section later on in the article devoted to her husband... that should be enough. 70.144.156.33 ( talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed that this article should be renamed to Jenna Bush Hager to reflect her recent marriage to Henry Hager. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
according to people she's sill undecided about her name. I' m changing it until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.78.63 ( talk) 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
according to what people? whitehouse.gov refers her to Jenna Hager in pictures taken after the wedding ceremony and a Jenna Bush in pictures before the ceremony. I think it's safe to put her as Jenna Hager —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.181.21 ( talk) 03:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest Image:Jenna bush wedding.jpg be moved to the lead image. Normally, the lead image should be of the subject alone, and not a group photo, if possible. -- Rob ( talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The new name was not added "in an attempt to disambiguate", it was added because it is her name now. I put the link to supporting evidence right next to her new last name to try to avoid anyone using the People magazine article as evidence rather than the more reliable White House press release. I was astonished to see that someone had changed the www.whitehouse.gov cite so that the article title was incorrect. It can't be good wiki etiquette to make a cite incorrect just to support your point. I've put what I think would be a good compromise first sentence. Ariadne55 ( talk) 12:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed this from the first sentence per WP:MOSBIO. Maybe this can go further into the lead or it is covered further into the article, but it doesn't need to be in the first sentence since this is not why she is notable right now. Maybe that will change in the future, but who knows. Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reference for this? Also, are they known as the first first twins or just as the first twins? Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Can it be decided whether to use Bush or Hager throughout the page. There are many paragraphs that use both names!!!! Sweet Pea 1981 ( talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The biography of living persons policy states:
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. (emphasis added)
I do not question that Hager's misdemeanors were well-documented. I do question, moderately, whether the misdemeanors were notable – a misdemeanor in U.S. law is a (relatively) mild offense, and teenagers purchase and use alcohol every day in defiance of the legal drinking age. I also question the relevance of the information to Hager's life; many public figures have been charged with misdemeanors in their adolescent lives, but most move beyond these incidents as they mature.
I suggest that unless a reliable source can be found documenting the impact of these incidents on Hager's life as a mature, professional adult, it has more in common with sensational scandal and less relevance for an encyclopedic article. Or (sorry, I thought of this right before clicking "Save page") if there is a reliable source documenting that Hager's indiscretions had a notable impact on the Bush administration, that would seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am, therefore, reverting the recent good-faith revision and inviting discussion on this topic. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One more thing... if (and I stress the "if"; I don't take it for granted) consensus is reached that the removed information does not belong in the article, per WP:BLP it should also be removed from the talk pages:
Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with BLP issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.
I don't want to rock the boat too much myself, but I suggest another editor immediately remove [an] unsourced rumor [...] farther up this page, as this is clearly libel unless it has a reliable source backing it up. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How to move a page while preserving its history and creating a move log: WP:MOVE. It's usually best to get consensus before moving a page. Also, after moving a page, you should fix all the pages that linked to it. To do that, you would go back to the original page and click "What links here" (in the toolbox on the left side). I've reverted all four pages involved in the recent attempted move of Jenna Bush to Jenna Hager, so it a move can be discussed and, if agreed upon, done according to the usual procedure. Ariadne55 ( talk) 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Move - her name is now Hager, she goes by Hager, move the page to "Jenna Hager" and have redirects from "Jenna Bush." The page should be titled what she calls herself. TuckerResearch ( talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This was a fair edit as there are too many inconsistancies with Bush and Hager. Jenna is more widely known as a Bush, so we should be leaving the article as Bush Sweet Pea 1981 ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it seem fair to put in something, you know, about the media coverage of the twins drinking habits? The article as it stands feels *incredibly* scrubbed of most of their appearances in the news while their father was in the Oval Office. [2] Dean ( talk) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
under the personal life section, please add something about Jenna Bush's underage alcohol arrests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.240.195 ( talk) 15:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Although not currently listed in this entry, Jenna and Barbara also attended Horace Mann Elementary school in Washington, D.C. at some point (reference: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E5DA173EF930A3575BC0A9659C8B63). I suggest that someone add this information for completion's sake. Phillipsusbpower ( talk) 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed some stuff about Michael Jackson and murder charges.
Baron ridiculous ( talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be rather inconsistent in how we refer to the subject. Sometimes it's "Bush", sometimes "Hager". Both are ambiguous, since one could be referring to other people also mentioned in this article. When referred to in the media, she is almost always "Jenna" or "Jenna Bush" (just look at the titles of all articles used as references). The only time sources call her "Jenna Hager" is when it's in the context of discussing her marriage. If her husband isn't mentioned, "Hager" isn't mentioned. So, we should always say "Jenna" or "Jenna Bush" throughout. I realize sometimes, the context makes clear which "Bush" or "Hager" we're referring to. But, if the context makes clear who we're talking about in a particular sentence, you could just as easily use "she" or "her". If we're using a name, it should be a name that only applies to one person. -- Rob ( talk) 03:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Jenna Hager → Jenna Bush Hager – I'm not sure why this article is still using "only" her married name, but clearly she is referred to as "Jenna Bush Hager" Her official page at the Today Show, says Jenna Bush Hager. That should be enough, since she is officially going by both names, but other reliable sources also use both names news, [3], [4], including her Twitter Handle. Jenna Bush Hager gets over700,000 Google hits, while Jenna Hager gets just 27,000 google hits, most of those just mirror sites of wikipedia. I would have moved it myself, but apparently the page is indefinitely move protected because of a dispute 4 years ago on whether the page should of been Jenna Bush or Jenna Hager but an admin made the decision for us, then protected the page from being moved, without any apparent consensus to do so.-- JOJ Hutton 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Henry Hager should have his own page, yet it redirects here. This is not appropriate given the high profile position that Henry Hager has. How do we correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.112.234 ( talk) 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
May want to add a mention of the look a like who exposed herself while changing on the beach.
Hager fill in for brian williams on may 26 to 27 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.54 ( talk) 11:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The child's name was recently removed from this article with a misunderstanding of the BPL policy. This action was reversed today, any issues with including the baby's name can be posted to the BPL Noticeboard as this is very much the same issue as Chelsea Clinton's newborn. Jooojay ( talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no misunderstanding of BLPNAME except by those who keep putting the names of non-notable minor children into articles about their celebrity relatives. --
Winkelvi ●
✉
✓
20:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Her party affiliation does not seem relevant since she's not a politician. Can we take this out? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 18:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Should we be using this to refer to her when discussing parts of her life which occurred prior to 10 May 2008? The following parts read strange:
All of these describe events prior to 2008. I do notice she is referred to as Bush at the start of the early/personal life sections though:
Shouldn't we follow this format and use Bush for describing events in early life? Ranze ( talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jenna Bush Hager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I swapped the infobox lead image (formerly File:Jenna bush wedding.jpg) with File:Jenna Bush 2004 RNC P42830-094.jpg, as it is unprofessional and misleading to present Hager as first-and-foremost a bride. While Hager's wedding photo is certainly a nice, professional image of a bride, per MOS:IMAGELEAD: the first image "should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. No self-respecting real encyclopedia would lead with Hager in a bridal gown. The bridal image would only be appropriate as a lead image if perhaps Hager was well-known as a model, dress designer, or whose notability stemmed primarily from a wedding. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jenna Bush Hager article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jenna Bush Hager. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jenna Bush Hager at the Reference desk. |
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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Granted, Jenna's wedding is all over the news this weekend, but surely it shouldn't merit 2 whole sentences in her 5-sentence-long introduction paragraph. Her name has been changed to reflect her married status, and there's a section later on in the article devoted to her husband... that should be enough. 70.144.156.33 ( talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed that this article should be renamed to Jenna Bush Hager to reflect her recent marriage to Henry Hager. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
according to people she's sill undecided about her name. I' m changing it until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.78.63 ( talk) 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
according to what people? whitehouse.gov refers her to Jenna Hager in pictures taken after the wedding ceremony and a Jenna Bush in pictures before the ceremony. I think it's safe to put her as Jenna Hager —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.181.21 ( talk) 03:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest Image:Jenna bush wedding.jpg be moved to the lead image. Normally, the lead image should be of the subject alone, and not a group photo, if possible. -- Rob ( talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The new name was not added "in an attempt to disambiguate", it was added because it is her name now. I put the link to supporting evidence right next to her new last name to try to avoid anyone using the People magazine article as evidence rather than the more reliable White House press release. I was astonished to see that someone had changed the www.whitehouse.gov cite so that the article title was incorrect. It can't be good wiki etiquette to make a cite incorrect just to support your point. I've put what I think would be a good compromise first sentence. Ariadne55 ( talk) 12:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed this from the first sentence per WP:MOSBIO. Maybe this can go further into the lead or it is covered further into the article, but it doesn't need to be in the first sentence since this is not why she is notable right now. Maybe that will change in the future, but who knows. Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reference for this? Also, are they known as the first first twins or just as the first twins? Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Can it be decided whether to use Bush or Hager throughout the page. There are many paragraphs that use both names!!!! Sweet Pea 1981 ( talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The biography of living persons policy states:
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. (emphasis added)
I do not question that Hager's misdemeanors were well-documented. I do question, moderately, whether the misdemeanors were notable – a misdemeanor in U.S. law is a (relatively) mild offense, and teenagers purchase and use alcohol every day in defiance of the legal drinking age. I also question the relevance of the information to Hager's life; many public figures have been charged with misdemeanors in their adolescent lives, but most move beyond these incidents as they mature.
I suggest that unless a reliable source can be found documenting the impact of these incidents on Hager's life as a mature, professional adult, it has more in common with sensational scandal and less relevance for an encyclopedic article. Or (sorry, I thought of this right before clicking "Save page") if there is a reliable source documenting that Hager's indiscretions had a notable impact on the Bush administration, that would seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am, therefore, reverting the recent good-faith revision and inviting discussion on this topic. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One more thing... if (and I stress the "if"; I don't take it for granted) consensus is reached that the removed information does not belong in the article, per WP:BLP it should also be removed from the talk pages:
Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with BLP issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.
I don't want to rock the boat too much myself, but I suggest another editor immediately remove [an] unsourced rumor [...] farther up this page, as this is clearly libel unless it has a reliable source backing it up. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How to move a page while preserving its history and creating a move log: WP:MOVE. It's usually best to get consensus before moving a page. Also, after moving a page, you should fix all the pages that linked to it. To do that, you would go back to the original page and click "What links here" (in the toolbox on the left side). I've reverted all four pages involved in the recent attempted move of Jenna Bush to Jenna Hager, so it a move can be discussed and, if agreed upon, done according to the usual procedure. Ariadne55 ( talk) 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Move - her name is now Hager, she goes by Hager, move the page to "Jenna Hager" and have redirects from "Jenna Bush." The page should be titled what she calls herself. TuckerResearch ( talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This was a fair edit as there are too many inconsistancies with Bush and Hager. Jenna is more widely known as a Bush, so we should be leaving the article as Bush Sweet Pea 1981 ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it seem fair to put in something, you know, about the media coverage of the twins drinking habits? The article as it stands feels *incredibly* scrubbed of most of their appearances in the news while their father was in the Oval Office. [2] Dean ( talk) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
under the personal life section, please add something about Jenna Bush's underage alcohol arrests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.240.195 ( talk) 15:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Although not currently listed in this entry, Jenna and Barbara also attended Horace Mann Elementary school in Washington, D.C. at some point (reference: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E5DA173EF930A3575BC0A9659C8B63). I suggest that someone add this information for completion's sake. Phillipsusbpower ( talk) 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed some stuff about Michael Jackson and murder charges.
Baron ridiculous ( talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be rather inconsistent in how we refer to the subject. Sometimes it's "Bush", sometimes "Hager". Both are ambiguous, since one could be referring to other people also mentioned in this article. When referred to in the media, she is almost always "Jenna" or "Jenna Bush" (just look at the titles of all articles used as references). The only time sources call her "Jenna Hager" is when it's in the context of discussing her marriage. If her husband isn't mentioned, "Hager" isn't mentioned. So, we should always say "Jenna" or "Jenna Bush" throughout. I realize sometimes, the context makes clear which "Bush" or "Hager" we're referring to. But, if the context makes clear who we're talking about in a particular sentence, you could just as easily use "she" or "her". If we're using a name, it should be a name that only applies to one person. -- Rob ( talk) 03:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Jenna Hager → Jenna Bush Hager – I'm not sure why this article is still using "only" her married name, but clearly she is referred to as "Jenna Bush Hager" Her official page at the Today Show, says Jenna Bush Hager. That should be enough, since she is officially going by both names, but other reliable sources also use both names news, [3], [4], including her Twitter Handle. Jenna Bush Hager gets over700,000 Google hits, while Jenna Hager gets just 27,000 google hits, most of those just mirror sites of wikipedia. I would have moved it myself, but apparently the page is indefinitely move protected because of a dispute 4 years ago on whether the page should of been Jenna Bush or Jenna Hager but an admin made the decision for us, then protected the page from being moved, without any apparent consensus to do so.-- JOJ Hutton 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Henry Hager should have his own page, yet it redirects here. This is not appropriate given the high profile position that Henry Hager has. How do we correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.112.234 ( talk) 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
May want to add a mention of the look a like who exposed herself while changing on the beach.
Hager fill in for brian williams on may 26 to 27 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.54 ( talk) 11:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The child's name was recently removed from this article with a misunderstanding of the BPL policy. This action was reversed today, any issues with including the baby's name can be posted to the BPL Noticeboard as this is very much the same issue as Chelsea Clinton's newborn. Jooojay ( talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no misunderstanding of BLPNAME except by those who keep putting the names of non-notable minor children into articles about their celebrity relatives. --
Winkelvi ●
✉
✓
20:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Her party affiliation does not seem relevant since she's not a politician. Can we take this out? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 18:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Should we be using this to refer to her when discussing parts of her life which occurred prior to 10 May 2008? The following parts read strange:
All of these describe events prior to 2008. I do notice she is referred to as Bush at the start of the early/personal life sections though:
Shouldn't we follow this format and use Bush for describing events in early life? Ranze ( talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jenna Bush Hager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I swapped the infobox lead image (formerly File:Jenna bush wedding.jpg) with File:Jenna Bush 2004 RNC P42830-094.jpg, as it is unprofessional and misleading to present Hager as first-and-foremost a bride. While Hager's wedding photo is certainly a nice, professional image of a bride, per MOS:IMAGELEAD: the first image "should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. No self-respecting real encyclopedia would lead with Hager in a bridal gown. The bridal image would only be appropriate as a lead image if perhaps Hager was well-known as a model, dress designer, or whose notability stemmed primarily from a wedding. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)