Jump to content

Talk:Jenna Bush Hager

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baron ridiculous (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 27 August 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Not in the intro paragraph

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)[reply]

Do we have a source for the name change yet? I'm not disputing that she's probably changed her name, but it shouldn't be changed on the page without a cite. Also, we need to know if she's using all four names or dropping Welch or Bush. Ariadne55 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found confirmation of name change: [1]. I'll change the page now. Ariadne55 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

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)[reply]

I'd agree with moving her to "Jenna Hager", with her birthname becoming a redirect page. However, I don't think we can move her to "Jenna Bush Hager" yet. The problem is, we don't know what her full name is now. We have proof that her first name is still Jenna and her last name is now Hager. However, we don't know if she's 1) completely dropped Bush, or 2) added Bush as a second middle name, or 3) dropped Welch and put Bush as her sole middle name. Options two and three seem equally likely to me. Ariadne55 (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:NCP clearly states, "In all such cases, continue to apply the general rule that Wikipedia uses the form of the name that is most common for referring to the person in question (if a name is the evident choice of the article subject, it is likely to be common; but evidence of actual usage is to be preferred when they differ), and especially do not swap the original last name and that of the spouse or vice versa in an attempt to disambiguate. Examples of correct names to use for biographical article titles (each with a differing example from a comparable region and period)." This indicates that since her name as a Bush is most common then the article title should remain the same. She has established her identity as a notable entity before her marriage and her name change is only recent thus the most common usage is still Bush. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is too early. English Subtitle (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

picture

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)[reply]

Name

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)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia policy clearly states that the name used in the article should be the name the individual is most commonly known as not what might be official. See WP:MOSBIO. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:MOSBIO states, "[w]hile the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." A lead sentence that starts, "Jenna Hager, better known by her birth name of Jenna Welch Bush" covers that. Wikipedia does not require that we ignore name changes. Ariadne55 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing names in the primary and the secondary positions. Wikipedia articles use the most common name first followed by the legal name. Anyway, I've been keeping it with the compromise version of having the Jenna Welch Hager name followed by "nee Bush". --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything in WP:MOSBIO about order, except under pseudonyms (which says the opposite). I like my way better because it skates around the middle name question, but your way doesn't make any unsupported claims either, so it's all good :-) Ariadne55 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author and teacher in lead

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)[reply]

That has nothing to do with WP:MOSBIO. Read WP:LEAD. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read MOSBIO? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this person notable? That reason should be the first item in the lead it seems. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read MOSBIO, but I would have to agree with 70.109 here. The only reason we have an article on Jenna Bush is because she is the daughter of US President GWB. It's what makes her noteable. It only make sense that the first thing we mention is that she is the daughter of GWB, not that she is an author or teacher which has nothing to do with her noteablity. If and when her accomplishments as an author or teacher are sufficiently noteable in and of themselves, then we can change it, e.g. Hillary Clinton Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Twins

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)[reply]

Though it's not a cite, there are no other twins listed on List of children of the Presidents of the United States(I skimmed through comparing birthdates). The only possible exception is that Rachel and Andrew Jackson adopted one, but not the other, of her twin nephews. If they had adopted both, those would have been the "first first twins", but since they didn't I guess the Bush girls keep the title of "first first twins", which is usually condensed to "first twins". Ariadne55 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be original research without a citation, but thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever removed the first twins material from the lead, thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did that because 1) there is no citation and 2) it doesn't seem important or encyclopedic. Simply trivial fluff. Then I reverted it back because...well, honestly, other people are likely going to put it back in anyway. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush or Hager

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)[reply]

See the discussions above. I would have to agree with the discussions, we should stick with Bush, until and unless it's clear she is predominantly known as Hager, not Bush Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine for the location of the page, but which should be used for paragraphs in the body of the article? As Sweet Pea says, there are several places where she's called Bush in one sentence and Hager in the next. I've fixed it once and seen it reverted, I don't want to go through line by line like that again until I know which to go with. Ariadne55 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should leave it with BUSH to go with the name of the article, with the exception in the intro paragraph. It can lead with Jenna Welch Hager. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the misdemeanor again

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edited above comment, per discussion. Ariadne55 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is both well documented and notable as a result of it being well documented. The original text was even trimmed in order to remove it of undue weight. Its notability does not spawn from how it had an impact on her life, but from the public interest in the matter. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion – which may or may not reflect consensus; I'm not sure – is that having multiple sources does not automatically indicate notability. However, if consensus here supports leaving it in, then my personal opinion is irrelevant. It's hard to argue with your comment regarding public interest.
Regardless of consensus on the alcohol charges, [other rumors] could be considered libel and should probably be removed. Am I at least correct in this regard? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited above comment, per discussion. Ariadne55 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing whether or not drug charges were brought about a specific individual is certainly not to be considered libel. The U.S. is not a police state nor would rumor-based tabloids exist if that were the case. I do agree, however, that unsubstantiated assertions that Bush did use marijuana would be considered libel. Libel pertains to whether or not an identity damaging accusation can be met with sufficient proof to support the probability that the event in question occurred. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... the legal definition of libel aside, the mention of Bush/Hager [in other rumors] is completely unsourced in its current form. There is a number in brackets which appears to be a reference link, but that reference is not found here. Per WP:BLP, I believe that this information cannot remain visible on the talk page (see my BLP quotes above) as it is unsourced and potentially damaging to Hager's career (she is a teacher, a profession which values an individual's reputation quite highly in some areas). Wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not contain rumor-based information. I would remove it myself, but given my other edits today, I would prefer that another editor do it so that no one can accuse me of being on some crusade to sanitize her public image. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. For the record, I wouldn't have seen anything wrong with it had you removed the comment. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should use a very light hand in dealing with other people's comments. I've restored the deleted paragraph and edited it. I've also edited other pertinent paragraphs and left a note after each. Ariadne55 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. Ave Caesar, I'm sometimes a bit paranoid when it comes to dealing with political or quasi-political issues; I didn't think you would have complained given your patient response to my revisions and comments, but I wanted to be sure no one else would either. Thanks again. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
futhermore, if misdemeanor arrest should be excluded from this article, then they should be excluded from all wiki articles, including this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Lohan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.240.195 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Editing

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)[reply]

Fine, go ahead and discuss that - but look closer at the version your reverting to. It has clear vandalism about her "daddy" and abortion and this and that. Search for "daddy". Please be more careful. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Pea 1981 is also inserting paragraph ===Sex Appeal=== which describes sex acts and sexual content. THAT insertion is not a mistake - but blantant vandalism.... Dinkytown (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Coverage has been scrubbed out of this?

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)[reply]

Requested Addition

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Removed vandalism

Removed some stuff about Michael Jackson and murder charges.

Baron ridiculous (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenna_Bush_Hager&oldid=310451572"