Talk:Barbara Bush (born 1981)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Name change
Somebody, for no great reason, changed the name form Barbara Pierce Bush (1981) to Barbara Pierce Bush (twin). Given almost all backlinks were to Barbara Pierce Bush (1981), this move was unwarranted. If somebody wishes to keep the new name, please fix the backlinks, by bypassing the redirect. In a couple days if most articles are still linking to Barbara Pierce Bush (1981), then I'll move it back. I don't want to have a situation where the article is repeatedly moved, and various redirects left being used. I took the time to fix a number of articles to point directly to this article, before the name change, and dislike my effort being wasted. So, basically, I'm just asking somebody to finish what they started. --Rob 21:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Barbara Pierce Bush (1981) isn't a great name, because the other Barbara Pierce Bush article doesn't use a birth year in its title, so there's no parallelism. Using (twin) isn't great for the same reason. Since the other article uses (First Lady), her relationship to the Presidency, perhaps this one should be called Barbara Pierce Bush (Presidential daughter). Then again, I think the First Lady article should have stayed at Barbara Bush plain and simple, since she's far more known, important, and referenced than this Barbara. Wasted Time R 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- _ _ A good Dab'g suffix
- requires no head-scratching in distinguishing the topic from the other topics that were candidates for the un-Dab'd title, and
- is short.
- Period.
- Creating parallelism is not per se a virtue, and striving for it is a bad habit since it's just luck when it does a good job; if you have an American selectman, an American magistrate, and an Australian lawyer/MP, then the best set of dab'n suffixes (each its topics best available combination of brevity & being widely understood) is instead probably two case-of ones -- (politician) and (jurist) -- and a context-of one -- (Australia).
- _ _ If you'd rather let it stand than choose between doing a batch of rdr-snappings or creating rdrs by changing it, that's your business. But my failure to snap them is irrelevant to whether your changing it is good for WP:
- If my change was good, it's an improvement despite the rdrs, and the only problem is that there's still work waiting for someone to do it.
- The rdrs getting snapped is good, but doing it by hand is usually a waste of effort, since bot-master editors do it so efficiently and diligently once they get around to them. (It's also a waste of willingness to edit, for the many editors who need to leave the keyboard prematurely after a batch of snaps.)
- _ _ I may be mistaken in thinking that most editors share my distaste for Dab'g suffixes that rely on vital stats. Here's where my distaste comes from: In (1981), "19..." functions as the same kind of "mini-word" that "the" is; 8 and 1 are each like a whole, common, single-syllable word, so the burden on the reader is like a two- to three-word phrase. (1873 is like at least three words. And a DoB/DoD range doesn't feel twice as long, but it's nearly twice. And note that "Presidential daughter" has 6 syllables!)
- _ _ BTW, i didn't experience any inspiration about what to replace (First Lady) (which i find bad, but not as bad as (1981).) WP will always be a work in progress, so i refused to leaving that alone freak me.
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- _ _ A good Dab'g suffix
- I don't care enough about this to really pursue it, but I don't understand why disambiguating suffixes have to be short. No encyclopedia user ever types them in, only editors, so what difference does their length make? Wasted Time R 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- _ _ There's this illusion, that your eyes take in a phrase instantly and without effort, and that your reading speed is simply the number of words you can see at once, divided by the time it takes to shift your gaze to the next group of that size. Maybe you have to do experimental psych -- or read cognitive psychology, and see enough of its results line up with things you can confirm by introspection -- to get over that illusion. Every word you add to the Dab'g suffix slows down and tires the user. It also increases the likelihood of misunderstanding it, and of either having to reread it, or following the wrong link.
- _ _ There's far more going on when you read than you realize, and benefits of brief, clear Dab'g suffixes accrue even to users who never look at the Dab page. A relevant experience is cited in The Psychology of Computer Programming: the author describes turning a page, and having a nagging sense that something was wrong with the page, but no idea of what or where. He had almost finished the page when he came to a typo. IIRC, his reaction was not "What a coincidence: there is an error", but recognition of the error as familiar, despite his not having consciously read it, or remembered where on the page it was. Don't imagine that the article title -- the biggest type on the page (other than, in my browser, the W and A in "Wikipedia") -- is there for the benefit of the guy who walks by and looks over your shoulder. It's there for you, even if you just came from the Dab page by clicking on it, and when it's that big, part of your brain rereads it -- over and over every now and then if you stay on the page long enough. It helps keep you focused, and comfortable in your gut that you didn't absentmindedly switch to the wrong page. And if it's too long, you experience the greater time that brain corner spends on it is a distraction. If it's hard to grasp, you probably also feel vaguely confused, as if by the part of the page that your attention is focused on.
--Jerzy•t 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The way I see it, you might as well just lose the middle name and just have it re-named "Barbara Bush (twin)". Whoever changed it to its current title didn't take the standard of care of removing the middle name because with the "twin" description, her middle name being mentioned is redundant! Amchow78 23:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care enough about this to really pursue it, but I don't understand why disambiguating suffixes have to be short. No encyclopedia user ever types them in, only editors, so what difference does their length make? Wasted Time R 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Split
This is my attempt to split up the Barbara and Jenna Bush article into two seperate articles. It was created mostly by removing facts about Jenna and rewording the remaining facts to fit one person. This is an ongoing project for me, and may take a few days to complete before I start remapping links that point to the old page. If you have any helpful comments please post them here or in my user page. Thanks - Agonizing Fury 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Glad you did this. I thought of it myself a few months back -- I was quite uncomfortable having an encyclopedic article treat them as twins when they're 24. They're not Siamese! --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that the articles should be put together into one single article again. Instead of having one decently-sized article, now there are two articles that are pretty much stubs. It doesn't matter if they're 24 years old or 2 years old, it should be treated the same way. --Kyle | Talk
- I disagree. A lack of information about someone doesn't warrant having them share an article with another person. At the ages of 24 each, they are now old enough to be considered individuals who just happened to be born twins! You don't create one article for George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush just because they're closely related. Anyways it is my opinion that they each deserve their own article. --Matt0401 19:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that the articles should be put together into one single article again. Instead of having one decently-sized article, now there are two articles that are pretty much stubs. It doesn't matter if they're 24 years old or 2 years old, it should be treated the same way. --Kyle | Talk
Disambig
I don't see anything wrong with our current set up for the names but shouldn't we link to her grandmother who is also Barbara Pierce Bush at the top? Nil Einne 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Photos
The pics for Barbara and Jenna are photoshopped.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 October 2006.
Inconsistancy
This article and its sister article on Jenna claim that one was born in Midland and the other in Dallas? True? Any sources for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.5.12 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Third opinion
I am posting here due to a plea on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. Here are my third opinions.
- The person removing the cited material about the alcohol possession charge cites consensus about deleting similar text in Al Gore III. However, after reading the talk page carefully, I see no such consensus, only vigorous debate between a small number of individuals. Therefore, the rationale for deleting cited, sourced material about a notable person is invalid.
- The appropriateness of including such a fact depends on what makes the person notable. Normally, the children of a notable person (in this case the President) are not themselves notable. If the alcohol charge is what resulted in notoriety, then it should be included in the article. This is the case with Al Gore III - he is known for his troubles as much for being the son of Al Gore.
- The same is true for Jenna Bush; the article otherwise says nothing notable about her.
- On the other hand, this article about Barbara Pierce Bush is somewhat different, as the article does indicate other notable things about her. However, the incident is a part of her past that gained her notoriety, so the incident should be given brief mention. I emphasize brief so as not to violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
- A similar situation occurred a few months ago with the article on Steven Seagal. The article was a hatchet job, describing only negative things about the man. Now it is more balanced, describing the good with the bad. The same sense of balance should be shown here.
- I see no discussion on this issue here. Such dicussion should have occurred and reached an impasse before posting a third opinion plea.
- -Amatulic 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with Amatulic, a brief, sourced mention should be made here... and this should have been discussed here before a revert war was started. I don't see a consensus at Al Gore III, and these are 2 different situations anyway. Jenna Bush & Barbara Pierce Bush's legal issues were well documented and widely parodied in pop culture. It doesn't make sense to not have at least a passing mention of them in the article.--Isotope23 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- It now takes up one sentance. --Strothra 18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. It is very simple. If Al Gore III's article is going to devoid of any and all references to his driving record, alcohol and drug abuse problems, and his inability to drive the speed limit without, and his inability to drive a car without alcohol in his system then the Bush twins will not be subject to biased treatment. It will be equal or not at all. As far as I can tell including those items, but not including the long, long, long record of Al Gore III--at least five, may be six, incidents, starting when he was 13 until just recently--is unequal and POV treatment. Wikipedia is supposed to be nonparisan and maintain a Neutral Point of View. Referring to their two SMALL run ins and not referring to his HUGE lengthy and detailed brushes with the law is clearly a POV pushing, Bio of Living person violation. I will revert the information until there is a concensus at Al Gore III. Also, this is a Bio of a Living Person and we are NOT going to defame anyone. Have a good day.--Getaway 22:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you disagree with what has happened at the Al Gore III article but your actions here are inappropriate. And including well-sourced information, even if it's of a negative or even criminal nature, is most definitely not defamation or a violation of WP:BLP. A brief mention of something that drew significant media attention is appropriate. --ElKevbo 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. It is very simple. If Al Gore III's article is going to devoid of any and all references to his driving record, alcohol and drug abuse problems, and his inability to drive the speed limit without, and his inability to drive a car without alcohol in his system then the Bush twins will not be subject to biased treatment. It will be equal or not at all. As far as I can tell including those items, but not including the long, long, long record of Al Gore III--at least five, may be six, incidents, starting when he was 13 until just recently--is unequal and POV treatment. Wikipedia is supposed to be nonparisan and maintain a Neutral Point of View. Referring to their two SMALL run ins and not referring to his HUGE lengthy and detailed brushes with the law is clearly a POV pushing, Bio of Living person violation. I will revert the information until there is a concensus at Al Gore III. Also, this is a Bio of a Living Person and we are NOT going to defame anyone. Have a good day.--Getaway 22:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It now takes up one sentance. --Strothra 18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is my view also. Just because one article is written in some way doesn't mean all articles should be. I would say that in this case the Al Gore III article should have information included - so long as it is well sourced.
- The information that is being included is well sourced and relevant, it falls well within the confines of WP:BLP and should stay. Please note that unilateral removal of information contrary to consensus is liable to get you blocked. Do not partake in any edit warring as it will simply be seen as vandalism.
- Finally, you are claiming that it is not neutral to allow information on the Bush twins to be included as information is not being included on Al Gore's article - this simply shows that you are not assuming good faith and are yourself editing in a POV manner.-Localzuk(talk) 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Getaway, please note that you do not own this article and must respect consensus and WP:POINT. Including this information is within the policy set in WP:BLP - these individuals are public figures whereas that is much more questionable in regard to Al Gore III, but that is not in discussion here. If you have an edit dispute regarding the Al Gore III article then discuss it there. Not here. You are interrupting Wikipedia to make a point in regard to your edit dispute in that article. Children of a president are far more notable than those of a vice president, this incident received quite a bit of media/press attention and was a notable event both in the media and for her public persona. --Strothra 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Bush twins
Please note that threats of revert warring (and then partaking in it) violate various policies on Wikipedia. Notably, WP:3RR and WP:POINT. Please also note that you would be violating WP:CONSENSUS. Removal of well sourced information, which is not contrary to WP:BLP will be considered as vandalism and as such, all of these are likely to get you blocked.-Localzuk(talk) 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly I have never talked to you. Therefore, you need to assume "good faith." Based upon the above comments. I do not believe that you are. You never responded to the underlining issue involved. In the Al Gore III article, there are editors who have decided to keep out all references to Al Gore III's legal problems. Now, in the Bush twins articles there are editors that have decided to put this information in. It is blantantly POV. You never responded to that issue. You are only focusing on blocking me. That is NOT good faith. I would encourage you to follow the Wikipedia rules and discuss the underlining rule.--Getaway 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- To paraphrase, what happens at Al Gore III stays at Al Gore III. There is pretty clearly consensus to keep brief mention of the incident in this article. If similar information is being removed from the Al Gore III article than the appropriate place to discuss that would be at Al Gore III talk page, going through all the processes available to you there if your concern is that there is some sort of whitewashing going on (RfC, RfM, etc)... but whatever is decided there has no bearing whatsoever on this article. There is nothing POV about that (unless of course there is a specific editor who is adding the information here and removing it from Al Gore III, which doesn't seem to be the case); they are 2 separate articles.--Isotope23 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly I have never talked to you. Therefore, you need to assume "good faith." Based upon the above comments. I do not believe that you are. You never responded to the underlining issue involved. In the Al Gore III article, there are editors who have decided to keep out all references to Al Gore III's legal problems. Now, in the Bush twins articles there are editors that have decided to put this information in. It is blantantly POV. You never responded to that issue. You are only focusing on blocking me. That is NOT good faith. I would encourage you to follow the Wikipedia rules and discuss the underlining rule.--Getaway 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Danish / Swedish ???
What is this Danish / Swedish (?) box doing in this article: "Kallenavn: Ingen Født: Ikke spesifisert Hjemmeside: Ikke spesifiser" ? I couldn't delete it and it doesn't seem to serve any purpose. --84.188.227.35 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- 98.6.77.134 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Trivia
I removed the trivia section: one bullet was redundant (Vogue interview), and the other was absurd (no one cares that she merely attended a Radiohead concert). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.34.126 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
- I have restored the section as this is a Trivia section, both bullets had sourced and may interest of interest to some readers (i.e. someone other than you). John Vandenberg 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with our anonymous friend. Trivia is, by definition, relatively unimportant and thus usually not worth including in an encyclopedia article. If it's really interesting or notable, work it into the prose. --ElKevbo 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to work it into the prose; if not, it can go. Give me a day or two. John Vandenberg 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with our anonymous friend. Trivia is, by definition, relatively unimportant and thus usually not worth including in an encyclopedia article. If it's really interesting or notable, work it into the prose. --ElKevbo 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, lose it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.131.148 (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Please note that Yale University, which I attended, does not award a fuzzy general degree in "Humanities." There are many majors in the Humanities (History, English, Spanish, Comparative Literature, Art History, etc.), and some interdisciplinary majors as well. Let's figure out what Ms. Bush actually studied.68.72.105.198 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Vatican/Pope engagement ring hoax
I have reported the constant attempt to put in hooey about Bush receiving an engagement ring from the Pope in the BLP noticeboard. It was getting to be annoying. You can review it here: BLP Notice on Bush daughter getting ring from Pope.--Getaway 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Misdemeanor
Where has the information regarding the misdemeanour gone?-Localzuk(talk) 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was removed on 17 Aug 07 by editor Scooter62986, here's the edit: removal.--Getaway 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think he was asking about something happening in Argentina, (I can't imagine that they have the same laws about underage drinking that the US does.) Steve Dufour 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was removed on 17 Aug 07 by editor Scooter62986, here's the edit: removal.--Getaway 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this paragraph?
- According to ABC News, in November 2006, she and her sister were asked to leave Argentina by the U.S. Embassy in Argentina—security issues were cited. However, the U.S. Embassy in Argentina flatly rejected ABC News' claim. The twins had travelled to Buenos Aires to celebrate their 25th birthday and remained in Argentina for their full itinerary.[1]
Either ABC made a mistake, which can happen, or the embassy staff changed their minds about the security problem. Either way it has very little to do with Miss Bush. Steve Dufour 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that there was previously some other information there, accompanying that paragraph regarding misbehaviour? But as it is gone now, the paragraph here should go also.-Localzuk(talk) 13:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the paragraph once and it was put back, so I don't know if I should be the one to remove it again. Steve Dufour 13:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the paragraph again. I really don't see what the point of it was. Steve Dufour 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree.--Getaway 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the paragraph again. I really don't see what the point of it was. Steve Dufour 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the paragraph once and it was put back, so I don't know if I should be the one to remove it again. Steve Dufour 13:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
References
- ^ Joe Goldman and Rhonda Schwartz. "U.S. Embassy Asks Bush Twins to Leave Country". The Blotter, blogs.abcnews.com (November 27, 2006). Retrieved 2007-07-18.
Removal of sourced information.
Why is the sourced information regarding her alcohol possessionn being removed? Our policies state it shouldn't be removed as it is well sourced and verifiable. I will restore it, please discuss it here.-Localzuk(talk) 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm responding to the request for a Third opinion. The information should remain included. — D. Wo. 18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Why has this been removed again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.180.43 (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Who cares
Why no reference to the Yale Naked party? Ms Bush goes for skin, October 9, 2004, Hartford CourantEnglish Subtitle (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not Jenna
Why no reference to her nickname? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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. [1] Dean (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would say no. I mean, this isn't an article about what the twins were like when their Dad was president. It is an article about who they are. To give a large amount of the article's space over to the media's references to their drinking habits would violate Wikipedia policy on undue weight, especially since this is a bio of a living person. It would be like overrunning Robert Downey, Jr.'s article with stuff about his old drug habit, when in fact, it only takes up a small portion of the article. If this article gets much larger, like Mr. Downey's, then perhaps that section should be made proportionally larger. SMSpivey (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Opening Sentence
While being an elder daughter would be significant if there was a non-trivial age difference, being the first out of the uterus in a set of twins seems any extremely trivial fact in defining a person, at least in this country where being eldest confers no legal or social status. Is this really how this article should open? -- Bdentremont (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Info box
In her info box, under relatives, it says one person. Her grandfather. What about her grandmother, sister, uncle Jeb, etc?129.139.1.68 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Secret Service code name
I'll use the lack of citation as an excuse to wonder what purpose such a code name serves if it's made public knowledge. Ribonucleic 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It is just "short hand" - a handle - used during communication to reduce transmission errors. Also, you don't have to worry about using first and last names, proper titles and other things by using a the short hand.12.2.10.242 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Misdemeanor
It's time to categorize Wikipeadia, along with NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc, as members of the left wing media. A thirty year old woman, wbo tried to buy alcohol a decade ago when she was underage, is defined in the first graph of her bio by this Class C misdemeanor. It is clear that the preponderance of editors and posters are Democrats, playing the left wing media game--everybody I know thinks the way I do, so my opinion has to be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.115.114 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bush Twins committed a misdemeanor. It is not a felony and it is not the end of the world and it should not define who they are. Now, I have been attempting to trim down the reference to the incident(s) which were almost six years ago. However, the incident keeps being moved to the top of the and given great emphasis. I can only believe that the reason for this is POV. It should not be the first thing mentioned about the twins. It should be a basically a footnote to the article. I have not attempted to remove the information entirely--as was the case in the Al Gore III article. I now agree that it should be in the article, but let's be real it has to be the first thing in the private life section?? No. That is pushing an agenda.--Getaway 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No one has said that they committed a felony, that it defines who they are, or that it is the end of the world. Please do not be a over dramatize the situation. It's a single sentence about a situation which received considerable and widespread press attention. It's already trimmed down. You are attempting to push it to the bottom, out of chronological order so that you might portray a rose colored image of the sisters thus pushing your own POV. The point is balance. Also, note that you are misrepresenting my edits as I did make sure the word misdemeanor remained in the article in which you complained about it being taken out. --Strothra 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No. You are wrong. You are misrepresenting my position. You just stated, "be a overdramatize the situation (sic)." I am not overdramatizing (I guess that's a word) the situation. This argument of yours is not substantive, it is just an attempt to denigrate my argument without having to response with substance, to the underlining issue. There is no rule that states that the description of their lives has to be in strict chronological order. Yes, it is a question of balance. For Barbara Bush, the younger, it was ONE incident where she where she got a misdemeanor ticket for having a beer in her hand when she was underage. That's it. You want to push it to the top of the article. I don't know why you feel the need to push it to the top of the article. But I do know that it is not that important. Yes it should be mentioned. But as the first thing in the section?? I don't think so. Let's see. The incident probably took all but five minutes to get caught and receive the ticket. She is about 26 years old and the one thing that the article wants to emphasize is a five minutes--ok, thirty minute--incident that happened six years ago at a restaurant by a large college campus. Unbelievable. Now, I heard over and over again why we should not put in Wikipedia the incidents of Al Gore III's life (and yes they are comparable). One of the arguments is that those incidents do not make up his whole life. That two or three (in Al Gore III's case four or five) incidents should not be the things that we judge his whole life on. If the Bush Twins and Al Gore III keep up the pace of the last three years for next ten years then this debate will be mute because time will have made all of these incidents seem distance and unrepresentative. However, if Wikipedians are cutting Al Gore III a break then shouldn't we back off a bit on the Twins. The information needs to be presented, but it does not have to be the first thing. It should move down in the article.--Getaway 18:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are not a judge of what is and is not important nor is Wikipedia. Rather, notability of this incident is established by the press coverage and widespread attention which was given to it. Again, I'd like to point out that, unlike what you have attempted to charge me with [2], I did not attempt to remove the misdemeanor charge. I'm wholly rejecting your attempt to resurrect the Gore III argument since that article has nothing to do with this one. Putting it at the top of the section simply has to do with the fact that it is a bio and that it occurs earlier than any of the other events presented in the section. Your only argument for pushing it down is that you believe your judgment of an incident's importance supercedes that of anyone else. --Strothra 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- It should be left as it is. It has a single line in a block of text in chronological order. Stop bringing up other articles - we don't use other articles as evidence for things here as they themselves could be in the wrong. As it stands, it is fine. I don't see any problems with it staying high up in the text.-Localzuk(talk) 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Right now it's not high up in the text, the visit to Rome in 2004 is above it and thus out of order. Further, the current version only says that she was charged with the criminal act. Just because you are charged with something doesn't mean that you are guilty of it. However, she pleaded guilty and that text should be included because it gives the result of the charge. --Strothra 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- It should be left as it is. It has a single line in a block of text in chronological order. Stop bringing up other articles - we don't use other articles as evidence for things here as they themselves could be in the wrong. As it stands, it is fine. I don't see any problems with it staying high up in the text.-Localzuk(talk) 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are not a judge of what is and is not important nor is Wikipedia. Rather, notability of this incident is established by the press coverage and widespread attention which was given to it. Again, I'd like to point out that, unlike what you have attempted to charge me with [2], I did not attempt to remove the misdemeanor charge. I'm wholly rejecting your attempt to resurrect the Gore III argument since that article has nothing to do with this one. Putting it at the top of the section simply has to do with the fact that it is a bio and that it occurs earlier than any of the other events presented in the section. Your only argument for pushing it down is that you believe your judgment of an incident's importance supercedes that of anyone else. --Strothra 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No. You are wrong. You are misrepresenting my position. You just stated, "be a overdramatize the situation (sic)." I am not overdramatizing (I guess that's a word) the situation. This argument of yours is not substantive, it is just an attempt to denigrate my argument without having to response with substance, to the underlining issue. There is no rule that states that the description of their lives has to be in strict chronological order. Yes, it is a question of balance. For Barbara Bush, the younger, it was ONE incident where she where she got a misdemeanor ticket for having a beer in her hand when she was underage. That's it. You want to push it to the top of the article. I don't know why you feel the need to push it to the top of the article. But I do know that it is not that important. Yes it should be mentioned. But as the first thing in the section?? I don't think so. Let's see. The incident probably took all but five minutes to get caught and receive the ticket. She is about 26 years old and the one thing that the article wants to emphasize is a five minutes--ok, thirty minute--incident that happened six years ago at a restaurant by a large college campus. Unbelievable. Now, I heard over and over again why we should not put in Wikipedia the incidents of Al Gore III's life (and yes they are comparable). One of the arguments is that those incidents do not make up his whole life. That two or three (in Al Gore III's case four or five) incidents should not be the things that we judge his whole life on. If the Bush Twins and Al Gore III keep up the pace of the last three years for next ten years then this debate will be mute because time will have made all of these incidents seem distance and unrepresentative. However, if Wikipedians are cutting Al Gore III a break then shouldn't we back off a bit on the Twins. The information needs to be presented, but it does not have to be the first thing. It should move down in the article.--Getaway 18:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Relatives
Why aren't changes which add twin sister, grandfather and grandmother showing up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossidor (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barbara Pierce Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120103015947/http://www.draperrichards.org:80/fellows/globalhealth.html to http://www.draperrichards.org/fellows/globalhealth.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051220131812/http://www.style.com:80/vogue/feature/071404/page2.html to http://www.style.com/vogue/feature/071404/page2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 5 July 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Barbara Bush (born 1981) — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Barbara Pierce Bush → Barbara Bush (1981 birth) – the "Pierce" doesn't dis-ambiguate her from the wife of President Bush; her name is also Barbara Pierce Bush and her article is titled Barbara Bush. Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- The typical format is Barbara Bush (born 1981), isn't it? — AjaxSmack 14:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't thinking of that comment, but remember that regardless of format, what I want to know here is whether this proposed title (either variant) is better than the status quo. Georgia guy (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Notability
Miss Bush is not notable in any way, and a Wikipedia article on her is not required. If necessary there could be an article on the entire Bush dynasty, but not on every member.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remember that notability is about coverage, not merit. (In case you haven't seen them yet—I see you're not active at AFD—the relevant guidelines are the notability guideline for individuals and the general notability guideline.) The coverage cited in the article is not insignificant, and it seems plausible that more may be available. If, however, you are confident that the subject isn't notable, you may wish to nominate this article for deletion; it's unlikely that any action will come from this talk page discussion. Rebbing 14:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barbara Bush (born 1981). 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/20090805010842/http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/040400/gen_private.shtml to http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/040400/gen_private.shtml
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 13 December 2017
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Barbara Bush (born 1981) → Barbara Pierce Bush – This page was moved with very little, to no input. Actually, it had no discussion to it, but was moved anyway. The daughter of George W. Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, is commonly known as Barbara Pierce Bush as described in several sources Vanity FairVanity FairPeopleTodayUSA Today – the mother of George W. Bush, Barbara Bush is not known as Barbara Pierce Bush – that isn't even her name. Her maiden name is Pierce, while the Bush daughter's middle name is Pierce. Requesting this move per WP:NATURALDIS which encourages natural disambiguation when available. The Bush daughter is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, and not Bush's mother, who does not even go by such a name. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 03:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Relisted per request by Amakuru. feminist (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Feminist: wait, I object to this move. Even if it appears in a few sources, the name "Barbara Pierce Bush" is very rarely used in reliable sources in comparison to plain "Barbara Bush", in addition to having potential ambiguity issues noted before. I think the "born 1981" title was a better one than this. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Do you want me to reopen the discussion, or something else? feminist (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per my request to relist above. Although "Barbara Pierce Bush" is a WP:NATURALDIS, I think the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources is "Barbara Bush", and as such the title with "born 1981" disambiguator is more WP:RECOGNIZEable than the full name. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Barbara Bush the wife of George HW Bush is technically a "Barbara Pierce Bush" as well, and I don't feel it's particularly common to refer to George W Bush's daughter in that way. Separately, I'm not convinced she's independently notable at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- On the last point, I think it'a absolutely clear that she meets WP:GNG. There are numerous 3rd party articles and sources out there that focus on her and her sister, meeting the significant coverage bar easily. The fact that her notability ultimately derives from her father does not mean that she has no notability. — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per conventional disambiguation practice. (The infinitely far more notable Barbara Pierce Bush is someone else) Ribbet32 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 6 August 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Very little support. Some support for (activist), but mostly opposition to all. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 00:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Barbara Bush (born 1981) → Barbara Bush Coyne – Per WP:CONSISTENCY, since for married women of politically prominent families, we usually include their husband's surname in the main title (ex. Jenna Bush Hager, Mary Richardson Kennedy, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, etc) It would also help get rid of that parenthesis and disambiguate this article from the one about her paternal grandmother, Barbara Bush. Keivan.fTalk 00:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: As proposed, this suggestion appears to run afoul of Wikipedia:Writing about women#Male is not the default and Wikipedia:Writing about women#Defining women by their relationships. If her husband's surname is not part of the WP:COMMONNAME that is used to refer to her when she is discussed in reliable sources (which seems highly likely, given that the proposed name is a red link), then the proposal is clearly objectionable. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just because it's a red link it doesn't mean that it's not common, so that can't be used as an argument for opposing this move, although I respect your opinion. Also, many women chose to use their husband's surname following marriage. This is not equal to defining them by relationship. The whole article is about her life and career, and the fact that her husband doesn't even have an article means that she is notable in her own right, and thus defined in her own right. Keivan.fTalk 15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- No evidence has been provided that her husband's surname is used as part of her common (or even uncommon) name in reliable sources. Of course she is notable – that's not the issue at all. The issue is whether some characteristic of her not-so-notable husband should become part of her identification on Wikipedia by default. Only one of the 26 sources cited in the article has "Coyne" in its headline. That article does not refer to her using the name Coyne; it refers to her exclusively as "Barbara Bush". It only says that the person she married is named Craig Coyne. There is also a second source cited in the article that discusses her marriage, and it has exactly the same treatment – it exclusively refers to her as Barbara Bush. Many women (and most men) do not change their legal name when they get married (see Lucy Stone), and some of those who do continue to primarily use their prior name after that (especially if they are someone who is well known and has a famous name and is marrying someone who is not very well known). As far as I can tell, the idea that "Coyne" is part of her name is completely unsourced. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- After some searching, I was able to find one article in People and another in Us Weekly (both about the same incident of her visiting her sister after the birth of a nephew) that refer to her as "Barbara Bush Coyne". Those are not great sources, and it seems clear that most sources continue to refer to her as "Barbara Bush" without the "Coyne". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Many of the sources used in the article were added before her marriage, as the article has existed for a long time, even before she got married, thus it's reasonable to assume that Coyne was not part of her surname back then. That is why she is referred to as Barbara Bush in many parts of the article, cause that was her only name before marriage. The same is true for figures such as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, who is referred to as Meghan Markle before her marriage and as Duchess of Sussex after 2018. The idea that Coyne is part of her name is not unsourced, even you were able to find some online sources that mention her with her husband's surname. And, yes, I know that not all women choose to use their husbands' surname, but there are also many who do so (ex. Antoinette Brown Blackwell). By the way, another reason based on which I requested this article to be moved is WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, as another user mentioned it above. It's the best way to disambiguate this article from the one about her grandmother without including year of birth or occupation in the main title, which looks pretty bizarre. Keivan.fTalk 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Unsourced" means that there is no source that is cited in the article. It does not mean that sources would be impossible to find. It just means that no source is cited. I don't consider the two articles that I found to be very good quality or otherwise sufficient to want to cite them in the article. And I had to search specifically for them. It is clear to me that even after her marriage, most sources still refer to her as just "Barbara Bush". We should not assume that her husband's surname will frequently be appended; there is no evidence that her husband's surname will ever become part of her common name. Ms Markle is a completely different topic, and was a not-especially well-known person who was marrying into an extremely famous family and centuries-old royal tradition. Yes, it is obvious that no one would call Ms Bush "Coyne" before she was married; I don't know why you're even bringing that up. I was looking at the sources that were written after her marriage. It is hypothetically possible that she might drop "Bush" completely in the future, or get a divorce from Coyne, or stay happily married to him without using his surname as her own, or start calling herself "Moonbeam Stargazer". But we shouldn't be changing her name without some good evidence. Does she have a public-facing Facebook page? A Twitter account? A LinkedIn profile? What do those say? IMDB calls her "Barbara Bush" with no mention of "Coyne" except to say that she married someone named Craig Coyne. The description of her on the Global Health Corps website, which is presumably current, calls her "Barbara Bush" with no mention of "Coyne". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I know what "Unsourced" means. All I was trying to explain was that it's possible to find evidence. First of all, I just used Markle as an example to show how people's surnames or even common names may change after marriage. And, no, she was actually a well-known and recognizable actress with a leading role in a famous TV series, and yet we saw how easily her common name changed following marriage. Now, you may be right, because in her case she was marrying into a family with centuries of tradition, while Bush married a relatively normal man who is not even as notable as her, but that doesn't mean that she does not wish to use her married surname. We cannot talk on her behalf, and speculations such as a potential divorce in the future or a happy marriage are both examples of WP:CRYSTAL. Right now, she is lawfully married to her husband and there's nothing wrong with calling her Mrs. Coyne. Unfortunately she does not have a social media presence, unlike her sister who has an Instagram account, which makes it harder to guess which name she is using at the moment, yet the Global Health Corps website cannot be used as a base for making the final decision either. Keivan.fTalk 00:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, actually, there is something wrong with assuming that her common name has changed, just as there would be something wrong with assuming that her spouse should now ordinarily be called Craig Coyne Bush or Mr. Bush. There is no evidence that she wants to adopt his name or that other people have generally started referring to her that way. There is something wrong with assuming that. The identified evidence indicates that most sources, including her self-published bio on the website of the charity where she is chair of the board of directors, continue to call her "Barbara Bush". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I know what "Unsourced" means. All I was trying to explain was that it's possible to find evidence. First of all, I just used Markle as an example to show how people's surnames or even common names may change after marriage. And, no, she was actually a well-known and recognizable actress with a leading role in a famous TV series, and yet we saw how easily her common name changed following marriage. Now, you may be right, because in her case she was marrying into a family with centuries of tradition, while Bush married a relatively normal man who is not even as notable as her, but that doesn't mean that she does not wish to use her married surname. We cannot talk on her behalf, and speculations such as a potential divorce in the future or a happy marriage are both examples of WP:CRYSTAL. Right now, she is lawfully married to her husband and there's nothing wrong with calling her Mrs. Coyne. Unfortunately she does not have a social media presence, unlike her sister who has an Instagram account, which makes it harder to guess which name she is using at the moment, yet the Global Health Corps website cannot be used as a base for making the final decision either. Keivan.fTalk 00:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Unsourced" means that there is no source that is cited in the article. It does not mean that sources would be impossible to find. It just means that no source is cited. I don't consider the two articles that I found to be very good quality or otherwise sufficient to want to cite them in the article. And I had to search specifically for them. It is clear to me that even after her marriage, most sources still refer to her as just "Barbara Bush". We should not assume that her husband's surname will frequently be appended; there is no evidence that her husband's surname will ever become part of her common name. Ms Markle is a completely different topic, and was a not-especially well-known person who was marrying into an extremely famous family and centuries-old royal tradition. Yes, it is obvious that no one would call Ms Bush "Coyne" before she was married; I don't know why you're even bringing that up. I was looking at the sources that were written after her marriage. It is hypothetically possible that she might drop "Bush" completely in the future, or get a divorce from Coyne, or stay happily married to him without using his surname as her own, or start calling herself "Moonbeam Stargazer". But we shouldn't be changing her name without some good evidence. Does she have a public-facing Facebook page? A Twitter account? A LinkedIn profile? What do those say? IMDB calls her "Barbara Bush" with no mention of "Coyne" except to say that she married someone named Craig Coyne. The description of her on the Global Health Corps website, which is presumably current, calls her "Barbara Bush" with no mention of "Coyne". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Many of the sources used in the article were added before her marriage, as the article has existed for a long time, even before she got married, thus it's reasonable to assume that Coyne was not part of her surname back then. That is why she is referred to as Barbara Bush in many parts of the article, cause that was her only name before marriage. The same is true for figures such as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, who is referred to as Meghan Markle before her marriage and as Duchess of Sussex after 2018. The idea that Coyne is part of her name is not unsourced, even you were able to find some online sources that mention her with her husband's surname. And, yes, I know that not all women choose to use their husbands' surname, but there are also many who do so (ex. Antoinette Brown Blackwell). By the way, another reason based on which I requested this article to be moved is WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, as another user mentioned it above. It's the best way to disambiguate this article from the one about her grandmother without including year of birth or occupation in the main title, which looks pretty bizarre. Keivan.fTalk 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- After some searching, I was able to find one article in People and another in Us Weekly (both about the same incident of her visiting her sister after the birth of a nephew) that refer to her as "Barbara Bush Coyne". Those are not great sources, and it seems clear that most sources continue to refer to her as "Barbara Bush" without the "Coyne". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- No evidence has been provided that her husband's surname is used as part of her common (or even uncommon) name in reliable sources. Of course she is notable – that's not the issue at all. The issue is whether some characteristic of her not-so-notable husband should become part of her identification on Wikipedia by default. Only one of the 26 sources cited in the article has "Coyne" in its headline. That article does not refer to her using the name Coyne; it refers to her exclusively as "Barbara Bush". It only says that the person she married is named Craig Coyne. There is also a second source cited in the article that discusses her marriage, and it has exactly the same treatment – it exclusively refers to her as Barbara Bush. Many women (and most men) do not change their legal name when they get married (see Lucy Stone), and some of those who do continue to primarily use their prior name after that (especially if they are someone who is well known and has a famous name and is marrying someone who is not very well known). As far as I can tell, the idea that "Coyne" is part of her name is completely unsourced. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just because it's a red link it doesn't mean that it's not common, so that can't be used as an argument for opposing this move, although I respect your opinion. Also, many women chose to use their husband's surname following marriage. This is not equal to defining them by relationship. The whole article is about her life and career, and the fact that her husband doesn't even have an article means that she is notable in her own right, and thus defined in her own right. Keivan.fTalk 15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Move to Barbara Bush (activist). Better to use an occupational descriptor than a date of birth, but not a name she does not appear to commonly use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't yet have an opinion on the original pyrophosphate, but would oppose this suggestion. She is not primarily known as an activist, she is known for being the daughter of the president, but we tend to avoid disambiguators that imply notability by association. Either way, Barbara Bush (activist) would not meet the WP:RECOGNIZE criterion. — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- pyrophosphate? Is than an autocorrect phenomenon? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't yet have an opinion on the original pyrophosphate, but would oppose this suggestion. She is not primarily known as an activist, she is known for being the daughter of the president, but we tend to avoid disambiguators that imply notability by association. Either way, Barbara Bush (activist) would not meet the WP:RECOGNIZE criterion. — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Move to Barbara Bush (activist), as using an occupation is more common, recognizable and CONSISTENT with other articles on Wikipedia. Is there a source to suggest that Barbara changed her name after marriage to Barbara Bush Coyne (or Barba Pierce Coyne)? If not, there certainly is no justification to move the page to that title. CookieMonster755✉ 18:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose any move. As noted above, although she appears in some publications under the proposed name, there is no evidence that it really is her name, and the bar for MOS:IDENTITY is not met here. "Activist" isn't really a good title either, that's not really what she's known for, and it is unlikely people seeing that title would immediately think of this subject, therefore it's not a good fit for WP:RECOGNIZE. Basically the same problems pervade as we've seen over the years at Sarah Jane Brown - someone who's known mainly for their association with others, but we don't think that's a good way to disambiguate. The current title was arrived at as a compromise several years ago, and I don't think it's outlived its purpose yet. Satisfies more WP:CRITERIA than others. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose any move. Her common name is Barbara Bush, so we disambiguate that in need, and we do need to. There is no particularly recognisable natural disambiguation, so we use parenthetical. There is no better parenthetical disambiguation, so we stick to our normal practice. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Her profile photo
This is such a terrible photo is almost comical. She looks cross-eyed and angry...honestly who uploaded this photo thinking it was a good idea?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.121.104 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)