This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Political positions of Jeb Bush 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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 04:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Question presented: Should this section on Bush's overall political stance be removed or included? Neutrality talk 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
CFredkin ( talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)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.'"
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)
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). Neutrality talk 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Neutrality, what's the rationale for this reversion? CFredkin ( talk) 03:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
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.). Neutrality talk 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
"A Tax Foundation analysis determined that the greatest percent increases in after-tax income under Bush's tax plan would go to the top 1% of U.S. earners, those earning more than around $406,000; such filers "would see their after-tax incomes increase on average by 11.6% ... the biggest change for any income group."
"The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see an 11.6 percent increase in after-tax income."
There are plenty of sources:
... 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)
I object to this thrice-repeated edit which replaced
with
Which is not only redundant, but misrepresent the source, which says:
Can we not obfuscate this very clear third-party report that Bush advocates for increased government surveillance.- Mr X 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)
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)
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.- Mr X 16:08, 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 advocates for more government surveillance by establishing 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. Bush also reiterated his support for the NSA and argued in favor of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA).
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)
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. [1] [2] 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)
References
In this edit [5] 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. @ CFredkin: The burden is on the editor who wishes to add content, and this text fails verification. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Political positions of Jeb Bush 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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 04:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Question presented: Should this section on Bush's overall political stance be removed or included? Neutrality talk 03:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
CFredkin ( talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)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.'"
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)
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). Neutrality talk 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Neutrality, what's the rationale for this reversion? CFredkin ( talk) 03:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
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.). Neutrality talk 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
"A Tax Foundation analysis determined that the greatest percent increases in after-tax income under Bush's tax plan would go to the top 1% of U.S. earners, those earning more than around $406,000; such filers "would see their after-tax incomes increase on average by 11.6% ... the biggest change for any income group."
"The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see an 11.6 percent increase in after-tax income."
There are plenty of sources:
... 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)
I object to this thrice-repeated edit which replaced
with
Which is not only redundant, but misrepresent the source, which says:
Can we not obfuscate this very clear third-party report that Bush advocates for increased government surveillance.- Mr X 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)
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)
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.- Mr X 16:08, 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 advocates for more government surveillance by establishing 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. Bush also reiterated his support for the NSA and argued in favor of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA).
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)
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. [1] [2] 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)
References
In this edit [5] 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. @ CFredkin: The burden is on the editor who wishes to add content, and this text fails verification. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
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)