Talk:Columba Bush

Defamation

Please do not list information not truly relevent to the subject matter.

(Personal attack removed)

• I removed the above-mentioned information from the article and I'd like some information about how she convinced him to convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.--HistoricalPisces 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Information? The answer to your question is obvious. When a Roman Catholic marries, he or she is expected to marry in church, even if the other spouse is non-Catholic. The Roman Catholic party is also expected to do everything in his or her power to have the children baptized and brought up as Catholics. Under such circumstances, there is pressure, either explicit or subtle, on the other party, to convert.

In this case, Mrs. Bush was Catholic. Jeb was not, until he married her.

John Paul Parks (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Legendary?

If the arts expert Sara Turner is legendary, why does she not have a page about her? 68.164.80.212 00:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Customs Infraction section

Don't see how this is really relevant or necessary by itself. I'm inclined to remove it soon if no-one objects. Grandmasterka 01:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to its removal. I think the information about the customs incident should remain. Mrs. Bush was the wife of the Governor of Florida at the time, and she failed to comply with the law. The violation was called to her attention, and she persisted in her refusal to follow the law. It is important for people to know of such conduct when it is engaged in by a person in that position. Also, while the Bush family is willing to push its religious and moral views on us, it governs itself by another standard.

John Paul Parks (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be deleted. Columba Bush is a private citizen who has never held public office; being a former "first lady" of a state - which is not actually a job - does not mean any little thing about someone is fair game.

I find it strange, after all this is a minor offense and as the post above says she is a private citizen. It does not seem to be in proportion with the rest of the article so I have removed it. For the record I am not american and I am not a fan of the Bush clan or republicans. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Immigrant status

There should be a brief note as to when Mrs. Bush was naturalized an American, as I presume she has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Noelle Bush

She is not the topic of this article. Noelle is not a notable person. It is a BLP violation to only focus on one negative aspect of someone's life. Please do not violate BLP by mentioning the younger Bush' substance abuse problems. Please see the discussion concerning Al Gore III.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Noelle Bush is not a notable person and as such only brief mention of her as Columba Bush's daughter or Jeb Bush's daughter or any other Bush family member is all that is appropriate. You can review the permanent discussion concerning Noelle's status here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noelle Bush (second nomination). If she does something that makes her a notable person then this discussion will be broken open, but right now she it considered not notable. It is inappropriate to use this particular article about Columba Bush to backdoor all of the substance abuse issues. Noelle is not a notable person and it is a BLP violation to only mention her in the context of substance abuse.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The mention of daughter Noelle's drug problems as a motivating factor for Columba Bush's work in drug awareness programs has been deleted multiple times. IT is a relevant fact given the article's focus on her philanthropy. I don't see how this is a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy.Arturoramos (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this article about Noelle Bush? No. Is Noelle Bush a notable person? No. There is absolutely no reason to mention Noelle's substance abuse problems. Zero. The article is about Columba Bush. Period. If you want to talk about Columba Bush's volunteer work on substance abuse issues then that is fine because Columba is a notable person. Why do you believe that we have to mention Noelle's substance abuse problems? Provide a reason. You have not. Provide a reason. She is not a notable person. You are only mentioning her substance abuse problems without mentioning basically anything about her--except the date of birth and where she went to school. She is not notable person, why do want to talk about her? Why do want to talk about only negative aspects of her life? This presentation is not only violates BLP (Noelle Bush) it is irrelevant to the topic the article (Columba Bush). You can talk about Columba's charity work without talking about the negative aspect of a non-notable person. You need to deal with several issues here that you have not done. You need to overcome the decision by Wikipedia that Noelle Bush is not a notable person, worthy of discussion. You need to explain why talking about Noelle Bush's life is relevant to the life story of Columba Bush since the article is not about Noelle, but about Columba. You have not provide any rationale behind these issues. You have merely stated that you do think it violates BLP. That is not good enough. You have not provided any substance. You just stick it in and then say you want it. You have not provided substantive responses to the BLP issue or the irrelevance issue or the notability issue. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. You have not explained how Noelle's situation is any different than Al Gore III's situation. He has way, way, way, more substance abuse issues than Noelle yet there is absolutely no mention of these issues in Al Gore's article, and quite rightly so. The information is irrelevant to Al Gore's article. Wikipedia has determined that Al Gore III is a non-notable person--just like Wikipedia has determined that Noelle is a non-notable person. Wikipedia has determined that merely presenting Al Gore III's substance abuse issues, since he is non-notable, is a BLP violation. You have not responded to the clear precedent of the Al Gore III decisions. You have provided nothing except for your desire to put in negative information about Noelle--that is not a good reason to put in information, especially information that has been found to be BLP violating, irrelevant about a non-notable person. This is what needs to be provided by you.--MaverickLittle (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy regarding "attack pages" states that "negative spinoffs" in which a large amount of negative content is added, are allowed, provided that the information contains adequate citations, etc.Rabbitflyer (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We should all be careful with this page

In the months ahead people will become more interested in Columba Bush - but we should be vigilant. This woman does not meet the criteria for being notable. She is simply the wife of a man who held office nine years ago. She does not seek the spotlight; she has never sought election to anything. Editors may use this page as a way to criticize or embarrass her family, or espouse their own political views in the guise of "journalism." Yet, until January 2017 Columba Bush is still just a private citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplethree (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For example, it seems relevant to mention her children by name, since that comes from a reputable source. But why mention what each child does? One is a public official and has his own Wikipedia page, but the other two are even less notable than their mother. The article should simply mention their names and stop there.Purplethree (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you saying that you believe Columba Bush is not notable then you should attempt to have the article deleted for lack of notability.--ML (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an AfD designation would get traction; yet the article seems to be far too detailed for a woman who's sole claim to notability is marriage to someone else.Purplethree (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Columba edit question?

What is your rationale or motive behind this edit. Eiffelrhs05 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all this discussion belongs right here, on the Columba Bush talk page, not on my talk page.--ML (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted me again. You have decided to make this into an edit war. Please stop now.--ML (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please review the Manual of style, which you can find here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Specifically, please note the following wording from the MOS: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." This note from the MOS specifically asks you not to do what you are doing, which is referring to her country of birth in the first paragraph. There are more than enough mentions of her country of birth littered throughout the article. She is not a notable person because of being born in Mexico. She is a notable person because she is married to a famous person and she is an American. There is no justification (and you have not provided one) for putting her country of birth in the opening statement. Also, please reverting without discussion. You are engaging in an edit war. You will get blocked after 3RR.--ML (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

de Gallo versus Gallo

A recent edit removed the reference to "Columba de Gallo" in the infobox and left a edit summary that says, "there's no "de" in her last name". However, the editor, Irn, does not provide a reliable source for his edit; therefore, I reverted. Now, I would like to have a discussion about her name before we make any changes. I made the original change to the infobox based upon the article written by Hanna Rosin in the June 2015 issue of The Atlantic magazine, a reliable source from a well-known writer and was recently written. She refers to Ms. Bush as "de Gallo" in the first paragraph in the following sentence: "His life, he said, can be divided into two parts: “b.c. and a.c.—before Columba and after Columba,” referring to Columba Garnica de Gallo, the woman he fell madly in love with while on a high-school trip to Mexico and then married 41 years ago." Also, the introduction paragraph to this Wikipedia article refers to her as merely "Gallo". These two need to be conformed I believe. I'm looking for input from other editors.ML (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This article and this one both refer to her as "Garnica Gallo". You've also got this article referring to her brother as "Garnica Gallo". Furthermore, since we know her parents' last names, we can figure this one out ourselves: her paternal surname is "Garnica" and her maternal is "Gallo"; put those together and you get "Garnica Gallo". If her mother had the last name "de Gallo", then she would, too. -- Irn (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I read through the Wikipedia article Spanish naming customs and I came to the conclusion that the article "de" could be used by Mrs. Bush if she wanted it used, but it would not conform to Spanish naming customs as they have developed in Spain and in Mexico. Based upon the fact that "de" can be used, if chosen as a public name, not a legal name, and that have a 80% to 20% split with all of the references then I think it is makes more sense to go with dropping the "de". "De" is not improper or incorrect, but it is informal and a matter of choice, not a legally accepted option. So to say that she does not have a "de" in her name is not really a correct statement. She might have had a "de" in her name if she used the "de" while she was unmarried. But we just do not know, based upon the reliable sources available. We do know that she dropped the Spanish naming customs after her marriage to Jeb, not only for her children, but for herself. She is known as Columba Bush, an Anglo format. Also, if I read this section here properly: The marital conjunction "de" (of) the "de" is used to move the paternal surname after the maternal surname, i.e., reverse the naming process. It is safer ground to just stick with "Gallo" instead of "de Gallo" because we just don't have definitive support for "de Gallo" even though it is an actual option for her name.--ML (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic Monthly source (which is used quite a bit in this article) states de Gallo. We go with what the sources say, not what we think they should have said per Spanish naming conventions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We have sources that say both. There are over three times as many Google hits for "Columba Garnica Gallo" as there are for "Columba Garnica de Gallo". As I explained above, it's obvious which one is right. (ML misinterpreted the other article. "Gallo de Garnica" would be a possibility for her mother, like "Garnica de Bush" would be a possibility for her.) Why would we go with the other one just because one particular source uses it? -- Irn (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Irn: I agree. -- ML (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, it's time for an RfC. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Mexican-American" in the introduction sentence violates MOS

An editor recently inserted into the first sentence of the article the term "Mexican-American". Of course that edit violates Wikipedia MOS. However, this editor made the following false comment in the edit summary: "Incorrect - we do refer to someone in the lede as mexican american if that is their heritage." This sentence is wrong and obnoxious, especially since the editor making the comment clearly has no idea what he talking about. I have included the wording from the MOS below that points out it is inappropriate to call Columba Bush anything other than "American" based upon her notability. This editor MUST NOT make this edit again--unless their a reasonable counterpoint to the MOS. But that editor needs to share it here first and that editor should not engage in an edit war.ML (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS guidelines for lead paragraphs should generally be followed; the opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have:

1. Context (location or nationality);
   1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
   2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.--ML (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Columba Bush is notable because she is married Jeb Bush, in America. She was First Lady of Florida, not Mexico. Her notability is NOT tied to Mexico. Do not re-insert the term "Mexican-American". She is American in the lead. The article goes into great detail about her past life in Mexico.--ML (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That particular editor reverted the article again, within minutes, without engaging in a discussion. I reverted the article back to the last stable version, awaiting discussion. Those edits violate the clear consensus.--ML (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Completely disagree. MOS/BIO states: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." First of all, her notability isn't tied only to her husband, if it were, she would not have her own article here as "notability isn't inherited". That argument is a non-starter. Secondly, her Hispanic heritage and ELL status has been referred to repeatedly in Jeb Bush's political campaigns and subsequent political life as well as practically every reliable source mention of her. It was significant in her role as First Lady of Florida and continues to be significant in his current campaign. Finally, the guideline does not forbid original nationality from being referenced. Indeed, at the Ted Cruz article, you attempted to add a plethora of content regarding Cruz' family's heritage that was most decidedly undue. I find it disingenuous that you are now fighting to keep such content from this article.

Do not continue to edit war over this content. Policy regarding such behavior states that when content added/removed has been reverted, that WP:BRD is to apply. 'D' = "discuss"; it doesn't say BRDR. While discussion is taking place, the version disputed is to remain as it previously. You have now violated that policy. Discussion here is what should be happening - I hope you intend to follow policy on this and discuss further. In fact, if you want to do the right thing, you would revert your reversion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in an edit war. I simply reverted the document back to the way that it was, when you broke the consensus. I started this discussion. You didn't. You just reverted. I have warned you on your talk page not to engage in an edit war. Please do not revert until there has been a broad consensus reached with the input of many, many other editors. You are attempting to change the article from its most stable version and you need to work with me to get to that consensus--which until you responded here, you were completely unwilling to do. It is great that you decided to stop your edit war and discuss. Please note that this particular discussion (about the edit war) should be on your talk page because that is was started and where it is appropriate, but you deleted it and called it BS and brought it over here. I'm just responding to your comments above. I haven't violated any policy and if you want to talk about that then you need to discuss it somewhere else, not here. This bringing this up here is inappropriate and you know it. Please do not edit war and please stop being an edit warrior.--ML (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not engaged in an edit war." You have been engaging in edit warring behavior. And not just here, but at several articles for months.

"I simply reverted the document back to the way that it was, when you broke the consensus." What consensus? There was no consensus prior to this discussion.

"I started this discussion. You didn't." Actually, no. As I noted above, there was an edit conflict on the page when I posted my comments. That means I was starting the discussion prior to you. But, it really doesn't matter. Discussions are not meant to be a contest.

"You are attempting to change the article from its most stable version" To quote Inigo Montoya, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means". Stable means what has been long- or most perpetually-standing. The article has said "Mexican-American" or "Mexican-born" for a very long time. At least five years. That is, until you started edit warring over it a couple of months ago. Currently, the consensus in this discussion is for keeping "Mexican-American".

"Please note that this particular discussion (about the edit war) should be on your talk page" No, it's appropriate for the discussion to be here, on the article talk page.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Most importantly, source after source (including her own husband) refers to Columba Bush as "Mexican-American". Because those sources refer to her as such, then it is part of her notability. The following are just a few reliable source examples of Columba Bush being referred to as "Mexican American":

• • Jeb Bush refers to his wife as Mexican American
  • Interview where she is referred to as Mexican American
  • The Washington Post attests to the importance of her heritage, "this tall Texas native with the Mexican American wife has remarkably come to represent a kind of Hispanic consciousness for the party."
  • Washington Examiner article talks of the importance of Columba's Mexican-American heritage in relation to Bush's politics "Jeb Bush's connection to the Hispanic community is hardly a secret."
  • Chicago Tribune article talks in great depth about her Mexican heritage and states, "She is enormously and proudly Mexican"

There are many more where these came from. They all attest to Columba Bush being not just American, but strongly and notably Mexican American. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:BIO says to generally just include nationality. Since this is a person with multiple nationalities, one could go with "Mexican-born American" or "Mexican–American". A hyphenated American (which she is) is an American citizen with multiple nationalities. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This one is a no-brainer. Her notability is tied to the fact that she was once First Lady of Florida and that has NOTHING to do with Mexico.--ML (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

One's notability is irrelevant to nationality. She was born in Mexico and is a citizen of Mexico as well as the United States. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The MOS, which I quoted above, beg to differ. The MOS states as follows: "[P]revious nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Her Mexican nationality is not relevant to her notability.--ML (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Her Mexican nationality is not relevant to her notability" Snuggums and I have given sound reasoning and examples as to how it is relevant. Would you like to see more examples of tnotability in relation to her Mexican heritage? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you speak for both of you? Snuggusms did not make that argument. He stated that notability has nothing to do with it. His argument was that she was born in Mexcio so she is Mexican and therefore we need to say she is a "Mexican-American". Don't put words in other's mouths. Just speak for you. Now, you haven't provided anything that disputes the fact that her notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is based upon her being First Lady of Florida--that's it. Her role as First Lady of Florida is not tied to Mexico in any way whatsoever.--ML (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, not editors. I know what Snuggums said, and what he said is that Mexican-American is appropriate and correct for this article, as it is in other articles. Bush's notability is established in countless reliable sources based on her Mexican heritage (were she is referred to over and over as Mexican-American) as well as her time as first lady of Florida. In fact, now that she is a former first lady, her Mexican heritage takes precedence in numerous reliable sources, making and even stronger case for her to be appropriately referred to as Mexican-American. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Her notability has nothing to do with the fact that she was born in Mexico. Her notability is based upon being married to Jeb Bush, not where she was born. See MOS:BLPLEAD.ML (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ML. WP:BIRTHPLACE is clear.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. She is Mexican-born. She spent the first two decades of her life in Mexico and she did not even speak English until her 20s. She may even be a dual citizen.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like but facts are stubborn things and you cannot just pick your own facts and ignore what reality is. You claim that she might be a dual citizen but you have not provided a reliable source to support your opinion. This is your opinion. It is not fact. If you presenting it as fact then you need to provide a reliable source to support it as a fact. Also, your comment above is not responsive to the fact that in Wikipedia's MOS it requires that a person's nationality is only mentioned in the first sentence if the nationality is relevant to that person's notability. Bush is not notable because she was born in Mexico. She is notable because she is married to Jeb Bush, the former Governor of Florida, a current Republican Presidential candidate, and the brother and son of ex-Presidents. She is an American and has lived in the U.S. for vast majority of her life. None of the reasons for her notability has anything to do with where she was born. You have not provided any reasoning that she is notable because of where she was born and used she lived for only 1/3rd of her life. She is now a U.S. citizen and she has lived in the U.S. for 2/3rds of her life. Her place of birth is irrelevant to her notability and you have not provided any reasoning to refute that analysis.--ML (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

By the same token, you have failed to provide a reference showing that she has renounced her Mexican citizenship, if that is even the case. It is a known unknown. What is a known known, however, is that she was born on foreign soil and she was an alien until she married Bush at 21. She did not even speak English for the first two decades of her life.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, all of those things are facts and they are true, but none of these facts negate the fact that you must provide show how her notability is tied to any of these facts. You have made a list of facts and they are all very fine facts but you have not tied them to her notability. And even though they are fine, outstanding facts they are also irrelevant to her notability. Also, I don't need to prove that she renounced her Mexican citizenship. Once again, you miss the point of the MOS rule entirely. We all know that became a U.S. citizen in 1979 so she is an American and that is how she will be referred to in the opening paragraph, as is required by the MOS.--ML (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First name IPA suggestion

Never have liked the "pronounced coh-LOOM-bah" pronunciation help after her name. The IPA is /kəˈlʌm bə/ and should replace the other. When the article is unlocked, that is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is she a dual citizen?

She was naturalized as a US citizen in 1979, but she was a Mexican citizen from 1953 to 1979. Did she renounce her Mexican citizenship, or is she a dual citizen?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

qual a altura dela? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.9.219 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Columba Bush. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007142035/http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/021401/pagea8.pdf to http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/021401/pagea8.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)