Talk:Barbara Pierce Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 03, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

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)

Contents 1 name change 2 Secret Service code name 3 Disambig 4 Inconsistancy 5 Removal of sourced information. 6 Third opinion 7 Bush twins

[edit] 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

1. requires no head-scratching in distinguishing the topic from the other topics that were candidates for the un-Dab'd title, and
2. is short.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.0.45 (talk • contribs).

---

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.

[edit] 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 agree, especially as per WP:BLP. --Strothra 18:24, 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)