Talk:Laura Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laura Bush article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

UT Portal

Contents 1 Vandalism 2 Second to hold a masters degree 3 Did she do active campaigning? 4 Michael Douglas 5 Nickname 6 Photos 7 Image:GWB.jpg 8 Elementary Schools 9 Mrs Bush 10 Early life and tragic accident 11 Protection 12 Smoking 13 Merge with Michael Dutton Douglas 14 Chappaquiddick (R) 15 What are the 'undisputable facts' that everyone can agree on? 16 The Name Game 17 Improved sectioning 18 Religious categories 19 Opening line - "Wife of..." 20 No mention of her nickname? 21 Accident 22 Controversies 23 Dinner setting photo? 24 Expand lead section

[edit] Vandalism

May I suggest a restriction on editing, due to repeated vandalism? dool325 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second to hold a masters degree

The note about the degree is ambiguous—second to hold any Master of Science degree, or second to hold Master of Library Science? Also, I can't find any mention of Hillary's degree through my googling. (maybe I'll actually have to read a book, heh) &mdashMulad, May 29, 2003

She's only the second First Lady to hold a post-graduate (meaning post-bachelor) degree of any kind. Hillary's is a J.D. from Yale Law School. I've restored/changed the wording to make this clearer. Wasted Time R 15:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did she do active campaigning?

Did Mrs. Bush do much active campaigning? Does she speak publicly much as First Lady? --Robert Merkel 12:50 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Douglas

An internet search for "Michael Douglas" and "Laura Bush" retrieves zero hits. Kingturtle 00:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record: [1] Shem^(talk) 07:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• And yet the information is correct. See [2] - Nunh-huh 00:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, this has been covered by USA Today, CBS News, the BBC, it has been admitted by Mrs. Bush's press secretary and so forth. I'm going to revert this back. Nakosomo 00:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The information is not correct as you've added it. She hit a car, whose driver was killed, not a pedestrian. -- Nunh-huh 00:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • You'd think rather than never talk about it, she'd speak out publically about drunk driving, and tell her story. Kingturtle 01:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Huh? She wasn't drunk! - Nunh-huh 01:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Fatally wounded"? Surely this is a euphemism for "killed"? --Attila the Pooh 18:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If he was pronounced dead on the scene, you might say killed. But he wasn't declared dead until arrival at the hospital, so there's no way to be certain he was killed in the accident, or just fatally wounded. The ambulance drivers at the time probably weren't fully qualified enough to be allowed to pronouce death at the scene. 66.57.225.4 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence that Michael Douglas was indeed her former boyfriend, not just a friend? [3] calls Michael Douglas a friend. So does Michael Douglas (disambiguation). If it was indeed her former boyfriend, was he a former boyfriend because he was killed, or did they break up before the accident (how long before that?)? The article is ambiguous about that. -- Yogi de 19:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, there is not - it's just one of those rumors that goes around based on nothing. They knew each other because they went to the same high school. They were not dating. "Acquaintence" or "High school friend" would be accurate -- boyfriend is not. --

Re:"No, there is not" - please would you cite your source, any baseless assertions are useless no matter which side of the argument they come from.

I find it incredible that a mention of Michael Dutton Douglas appears nowhere in this article. Can you imagine if Hilary Clinton had run a stop sign and plowed into a car, killing someone? Her article would have at least 1,000 words on this. Wikipedia has clearly been completely and utterly taken over by Bush partisans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.202 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname

"Her husband often endearingly refers to her with the nickname 'lump in my bed'."

Regarding the "lump in my bed" quote, I was unable to confirm our claim that he "often" calls her that. Indeed, a search on the phrase "lump in my bed" mostly turns up Wikipedia and wikipedia licensees!

a transcript

This transcript strongly suggests that Laura Bush (or a speechwriter) made up a bogus poem as a joke. She does say (also apparently joking? but I can't be sure) "Well, he really did call me that, of course, but..."

In any event, there seems to be no justification for us to assert that this is something that George W. Bush says "often". Katahon 21:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

The family pic is all over the goddamn place. This page is already crowded enough. Hopefully, Bush political family is linked somewhere and that's where the photo is relevant.

Why do we have two photos of the mexican state visit? Why not a photo of another visit or function? I'm thinking of moving one the mexican photos, given how crowded it is in the article. --Jiang 04:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks strange. I'm going to remove the group photo and keep the one with the Mexican first lady. --PrinceValium 19:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have four pictures (or five) at all? One or, at most, two, is sufficient in an article of this size. RickK 04:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm more or less trying to find pictures that display a person, and post them in the article that the person is in. Four or five can fit in this article, provided they are "downsized" enough. I think this article can handle it, perhaps if it is beefed up a bit more.

Oh, and as for the two photos, the reason is that those are the only ones I can find! Though you can replace one with the family pic. I don't think it matters if the pic is everywhere. I only put the pic depending on who is in it. WhisperToMe 04:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Please don't create 2-inch columns of text or extra whitespace. It's a net loss. --Jiang 04:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

If I cut it down to 200px, I wouldn't have that. Also, the "family" in the two pics is different. The 1st shows the "nuclear" family. The 2nd doesn't have the daughters but has Jeb and George Bush's father, which are his nuclear family, but not Laura's nor his daughter's. WhisperToMe 04:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

If I use a 800x600 screen, it's even worse:

Laura
Welch
Bush
(born 

..crunched into a column like that. It doesn't matter that the pic are different. They still dont fit. Also, she's higher in importance in the nuclear family than in the extended family. She's just associated by marriage. --Jiang 04:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the picture of the bush family baseball or softball thing should be taken down. That small area is over crowded with 3 pictures. This one is under the section of her being the 1st Lady of the United States and has nothing to do with the article. I think it should be removed or put in a different spot. --User:Shy1520 12:12, 04 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GWB.jpg

I removed this image for the following reasons:

• There are already four images in the article; each adds to the description of Laura Bush.
• Adding a fifth image bulks up the page - especially where it was placed.
• The article is about Laura, not about George.
• The image in question does not enhance the article.
• George already appears in two other images in the article. This addition is superfluous.
• The image is shown larger than it actually is, causing the image to look blurred and fuzzy.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 17:53, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Elementary Schools

Seriously, I would think there are plenty of schools named John F. Kennedy. Seriously, in Texas, many elementary schools I've seen were until recently named after Texas revolutionary war heros. So the linking seems wrong. However, I'm a wikipedia newbie, so I'm unaware of the trends in these things. I'd suggest as a prefix the state and city name. But really, do we want entries for every former elementary school in existance?

Just Some Thoughts, Root4(one) 5:03:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mrs Bush

Little Mrs Bush is such a darn good sport I feel. Shouldn't there be some mention of her courageous, fixed, slightly saccharine smile? And the lovely way they hold hands all the time, as if to say, "It's ever such a big world out there." --Wetman 01:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Early life and tragic accident

We seem to be coming towards a compromise on this section, but there are a few matters which still seem to be in dispute. Is there a good copy of the original police report available online? There's a very blurry version here: [4]. The disputed matters include: The type of car Michael Douglas was driving. Most reports seem to say that it was a Corvair Sedan, e.g. [5]. Others say it was a doorless jeep, e.g. [6]. As the USA today article is quoting from the police report, I would regard it as more reliable than the Free Republic article. The USA Today article also explicitly says that Michael being thrown from his car was not verified. The nature of the intersection. It is clear that Laura Welch ran a stop sign. I've seen nothing to indicate that Michael Douglas did; but the Snopes account, amongst others, seems pretty clear that he had the right of way.[7]. The relationship between the two. I think this is hardly relevant. While there are sites which suggest that Welch might have deliberately killed Douglas, these seem too farfetched to include in this article.-gadfium 06:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the end result here has been an improvement in the article, but in general I don't believe in compromising with an endless series of sockpuppets, especially when it's quite likely that they're all a resurrection of a user banned for a pattern of deliberately disruptive behavior (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas). RadicalSubversiv E 11:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The types of vehicles and details of the accident are not germane to an encyclopedic article. Keep it to basic facts and link to outside information. I'm reverting back to previous version and will dispute if it is changed again googuse 20:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've made my view clear, so I'll leave this for others to sort out.-gadfium 22:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting really boring. Radicalsubversiv's edits read like a bad high school paper. The type of car is not important. The feelings of those involved, beyond the quote that is already present are not important. The opinion of "another author" definitely has no place in the article. Leave it be. googuse 21:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's not my writing. I reverted you because you removed apparently accurate information without reasonable explanation. RadicalSubversiv E 21:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the information is accurate is pointless. It's extraneous information and badly presented to boot. googuse 21:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The information you have deleted repeatedly is not pointless, it is an essential part of Wikipedia's mission to present all the relevant facts. Wikipedia is not paper as others have pointed out, we can add as much as we like. I question whether a reference to a teenage accident is relevant at all, but if it is and if the article is to be encyclopedic then the whole story of what happened should remain. Good luck. Sanserson 20:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is presented is NOT relevant. This is meant to be a presentation of facts, not the Oprah show googuse 20:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about the bickering, but which facts are in dispute, it's not clear.

I find it interesting that every revert is being made by a new user. googuse 21:06, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The car crash gets most of pages 3-5 of Ann Gerhart's biography The Perfect Wife, and Gerhart describes Laura's car as a 1962 Corvair. The 1963 story made the front page of the Midland Reporter-Telegram at the time. It would be rather odd to give the story just a tiny mention now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course the facts would be fleshed out in a book. I still don't see how the fact that there was a Corvair involved is important, unless you're trying to establish some Ralph Nader connection. I'll continue to remove the info if it is changed again. There's has been no arbitration and i think it should remain locked. googuse 18:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I added that the vehicle was a Corvair was that someone else was addding that it was a jeep, which seemed to contradict the bulk of the material available on the web. Personally, I don't care what sort of car it was.-gadfium 19:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's clear that a lot of people would like to suppress this information. That the future first lady killed (not murdered) a man is important: she knows what it is like to take a life. 203.155.1.244 05:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely important to cover any outstanding facts in this case up, because G-D (ok so I'm ATHEIST thanks to the religious right, sue me) forbid, if under any circumstance, any perfect first lady is "defamed", it might just divert attention from Ted Kennedy, who the repugs seek to vilify while ignoring any pertinent FACT regarding any of their "heroes" who can "do no wrong ever". I'm curious as to what "googuse" (likely a FOX news commentator) would do if the Ted Kennedy portion of the Chappaquiddick Wikipedia article were to be deleted. -Jeff From San Diego, California

[edit] Protection

I have protected this page to stop the endless reverts. I have protected googuse's version which seems to be a median between the more detailed version which I preferred (but stopped fighting for some days ago) and the sparser version preferred by some others. (Signed retrospectively: gadfium)

Good call - I have a request in for arbitration. Hope it gets worked out. googuse 21:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The pattern of behavior here strongly leads me to believe that this it the work of Libertas/Ollieplatt/etc. It's simply too much of a coincidence for a horde of sockpuppets to start messing around with a bunch of his favorite pages at the same time (this, Oliver North, Soviet Union, etc.) RadicalSubversiv E 23:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's been about a week. Shall I unprotect and see what happens?-gadfium 23:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting. My intention is not to make any changes to the article, except to rollback changes by users who are created just to edit this article as was happening before, and to make minor grammatical/spelling changes - in other words, I'm going to stay out of any edit wars. I will enforce the 3RR rule without any further warning.

So the sockpuppets have the upper hand in a revert war? I suppose circumnavigating the (arbitrarily enforced) rules instead of breaking them outright is part of the New American Way. I'll continue to revert as I see fit - you do whatever you need to. googuse 03:02, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Don't get this issue out of proportion Googuse. In the overall picture, it really isn't that important.-gadfium 05:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking

Laura Bush has been a heavy smoker for decades, and as First Lady, special accomodations have been made for her habit (including, as I once witnessed, Secret Service officers spraying an aerosolized deodorant mist around her, apparently to prevent people from suffering offense from the smell of cigarettes on her hair or clothes). Laura Bush has always been very careful to avoid being photographed with a cigarette. Although she claimed early in her husband's first term to have quit "long ago," she has been coy and sometimes contradictory about this when questioned later by interviewers. (Also, she has also publically spoken out against teen smoking—she says the best advice for quitting smoking is to never start in the first place.) Does anyone else concur with me on this point, that her smoking habit is an appropriate subject to mention in her Wikipedia entry? Sandover 20:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only if sources can be cited. RadicalSubversiv E 20:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Washington Post reporter Ann Gerhart outed Laura Bush's habit in her 2004 biography, The Perfect Wife: The Life and Choices of Laura Bush. Ms Bush apparently takes care never to be seen with a cigarette in public. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence is out of place, but if it's going to be in the article it shouldn't be ambiguous about what she was smoking.

[edit] Merge with Michael Dutton Douglas

Any objections to the Michael Dutton Douglas article merging with this one? Coqsportif 01:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Strong. His material once crowded this page, and there is room for expansion at his article, which should apparently be stubbed. Shem^(talk) 02:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• The article now appears to have been one big copyright violation. Tsk. Tsk. No point expanding it I say. Coqsportif 02:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Article should be stubbed then expanded under his own name, not crowded into Laura Bush's page. Shem^(talk) 02:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree on this one. The teenager is not notable enough to warrant his own article (sadly). The limited facts worthy of inclusion should be in the First Lady's article, as they are already for the most part. The articles should be merged. Coqsportif 02:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chappaquiddick (R)

Compared to the section on Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick the Michael Douglas Dutton paragraph in this article is extremely brief and extremely carefully worded. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a 'fair and balanced' American paper.

"In May 2000, a two-page police report about a fatal car crash caused by Bush when she was 17, was made public. The report revealed that on November 6, 1963 Bush (then Welch) was driving her Chevrolet sedan with one passenger (Judy Dyke, also 17). It was a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. when she entered an intersection, failing to observe the stop sign Bush collided into a Chevrolet Corvair driven by Michael Dutton Douglas, also 17. Bush and Dykes sustained minor injuries; Douglas was pronounced dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital. Laura did not face any charges for rendering his death."

• No reference is being made regarding the fact that Laura and Douglas were dating at the time, that they went to the schooldance together.

• Words like "kill" and "manslaughter" are not used.

• The fact that Laura didn't even get a ticket although the police report states that she violated two traffic violations is omitted.

• None of the speculations (drunk driving, crime of passion, no first aid administered etc) are mentioned.

--80.217.225.208 03:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Describing Douglas as her amoroso should add to the article while still being very neutral and careful. Amoroso is a less charged term than 'boyfriend' or 'lover'. And less specific. --80.217.225.208 04:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, except "amoroso" is not exactly English and this page: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amoroso says that it has very strong 'lover' conotations that boyfriend doesn't even necessarily have by definition. It sounds just as charged. I think saying the two had a relationship beyond platonic friendship would be the most "careful," but frankly, "boyfriend" does fine. 206.221.224.35 05:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont know if you are all aware, but Chappaquiddick was far different then Mrs. Bush's accident. And the biggest contorversey surrounding Chappaquiddick, was Senator Kennedy's failure to report the accident, the fact that he saved himself but made no other aparent attempt to save the passanger, and the belief (though never proven) that he was intoxicated. Mac Domhnaill 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are the 'undisputable facts' that everyone can agree on?

1. Laura Welch was driving the car that hit the car that Michael Dutton Douglas was driving.
2. The passenger in Laura Welch’s car was Judy Dyke.
3. The car Laura was driving was a Chevrolet sedan.
4. The car Douglas was driving was a Chevrolet Corvair sedan.
5. The police report was dated 8.08 PM, Nov 6, 1963.
6. There was a dry road according to the police report.
7. The weather was clear according to the police report.
8. It was dark according to the police report.
9. The view was unobstructed according to the police report.
10. In the police report, two violations of traffic laws are listed in the "violations contributing to accident".
    1. One of the listed violations is that the "Driver 2", that hit Douglas' car, "disregarded a stop sign".
    2. What the second violation says is indecipherable, something about "speed", but not "speeding - over limit" which is the box above.
11. In the police report, there is no mention that Douglas 'made any violations' that contributed to the collision.
    1. Douglas had the right-of-way according to the police report.
12. In the police report, there is no mention that Judy Dyke 'made any violations' that contributed to the collision.
13. Laura was not charged with anything in connection with the collision.
14. Laura was not ticketed in connection with the collision.
15. Laura did kill Michael Dutton Douglas. Webster’s dictionary definition of the verb 'kill'
16. Laura, Douglas and Judy Dyke were all seventeen years old.
17. Laura, Douglas and Judy Dyke all went to Robert E. Lee High School.
    1. Douglas was nominated as the school's most popular boy while a junior.
    2. Laura and Douglas were classmates.
18. Laura Welch and Judy Dyke were on their way to a party that night according to the biography The Perfect Wife: The Life and Choices of Laura Bush.
19. Laura Welch and Michael Dutton Douglas had dated throughout early and mid-1963 according to the biography George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage.
20. According to Jim Vertuno, Associated Press, 3 May 2000, "Laura Bush ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing her boyfriend"

yes/no? --saxet 07:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I meant for this to be posted on Talk:Michael Dutton Douglas. Much apologies. --saxet 07:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Changed my mind, seems like this list can be useful here. --saxet 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Name Game

I sent out a few emails to track down Laura Bush's legal name. The White House did not respond. This is my exchange with The National First Ladies' Library:

My email:

Subject: Laura Bush's legal name

I am a contributor to an online encyclopedia and we are unable to resolve what Laura Bush's legal name is.

The likely options are:

Laura Lane Bush

Laura Welch Bush

Laura Lane Welch Bush

You have her listed under the last option. Do you know what name she legally adpoted upon her marriage?

I hope you can help. Thank You.

NoSeptember

The Reply:

NoSeptember,

I consulted our expert and First Lady biographer, Carl Anthony. This is his response:

Well, she was born with the first name Laura and the middle name Lane, and her last name was Welch. She married Bush. She signs her name Laura Bush, but her full name is Laura Lane Welch Bush, You don't have to declare what "official" name you are taking when you marry. I mean Hillary was born with the middle name Diane. Her maiden name was Rodham. She married Clinton. At first she just went by the professional name Hillary Rodham. Then she used the name Hillary Clinton. Then, in her first weeks as First Lady she began calling herself Hillary Rodham Clinton which she still uses, but she is listed with her full name Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Jackie Kennedy never signed her name, "Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis," she went by Jackie Onassis and then by Jackie Kennedy Onassis.

All of these women assumed, took on the last name of their husband; some signed their names with their maiden names, some didn't, and some went back and forth. So the names were "legally adopted" in that sense, but at different times they used their middle and/or maiden names.

It seems there isn’t any “official, legal” name but rather the name most commonly used by the person at the time. Really our SS numbers rather than our names legally identify us. Hope this helps.

Martha A. Regula, Library Director
National First Ladies' Library, Education and Research Center
205 Market Ave. S.
Canton, Ohio 44702
330-452-0876
regulam@firstladieslibrary.org

So, I guess the issue remains unresolved as far as I can tell. NoSeptember 23:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

(It's pretty amazing to me that the white house claims that "Really our SS numbers rather than our names legally identify us." when there is not even any legal requirement to have a SSN. What is this, Nazi Germany?)

- Someone should go through and add the appropriate prefixes, ie Mr or Mrs to each of the 'Bush' references to avoid ambiguity. At any rate, it is vulgar to refer to any lady, much moreso the wife of a Head of State, merely by her surname, as in 'Bush'. LordDextershire

"Vulgar"? Debatable, obviously, depending on one's sensibilities. The relevant standard is whether or not it is encyclopedic, which, of course, it is. If women are to be styled "Miss," "Mrs.," or "Ms", then one is to assume men are to be styled "Mr.," ne c'est pas? Fishhead64 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improved sectioning

I've redone the sectioning to better correspond to different phases of her life. College and work go together, then Marriage and family, then First Lady of Texas, then First Lady of the United States. Previously, college and marriage were put together, which ignored her years working, and First Lady of the US was a subsection, which didn't make sense since it's going to be the longest and most looked-at section. Wasted Time R 15:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious categories

Jason Gastrich added these categories to the article (since reverted twice):

• Category:Christian leaders
• Category:Christian ministers
• Category:Christian writers
• Category:Creationists
• Category:Young Earth creationism

Is there any evidence that she is any of these things? Cites would be needed. I've looked, but haven't found anything other than that she annoyed some religious types by being part of the "War on Christmas" [8] [9], that she thinks Roe v Wade should stand [10], and that she isn't sure that the constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage is a good idea [11].

While none of these are directly relevant to the categories above, they do make the last two at least seem unlikely. Wasted Time R 14:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Gastrich (in the talk page of Alan Keyes), just being a theist is enough to make one a creationist. Harvestdancer 22:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can see the argument for Keyes being a Christian leader and writer, since he's very outspoken and assertive about religious values and issues. But Laura Bush is not at all like that, as far as I know; she doesn't satisfy the definitons in any of those three Category articles. As far as creationists, the Category article's definition is actually very weak, including anyone "who believes or espouses some form of creationism", where the creationism article allows for theistic evolutionism, which a ton of people may subscribe to. But the category's current "membership" is obviously based on a narrower criterion. As for Young Earth creationism, you'd have to have an explicit statement from Laura Bush to that effect before including her there. Wasted Time R 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening line - "Wife of..."

I want to pass this around before I do anything on this, but in my opinion it is insulting to refer to someone primarily as "the wife of" someone else. This is a remnant of when wives were property of their husbands. She is a person in her own right. Now, her primary occupation at this time is President Bush's wife, but this is inherent in the title First Lady. As such, referring to her as the wife of President Bush is not only insulting, but redundant. At the very least, the first lady bit should come before the wife-of-the-president bit. If others don't want to knock out the reference to George altogether (I admit knowing WHICH president she is first lady to is important), I would suggest the following text or similar: "Laura Lane Welch Bush (born 4 November 1946), is the current First Lady of the United States, and is known for being married to President George W. Bush." I will likely forget about this, so I hope that if there is general agreement on this that someone makes the change. --RealGrouchy 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The "is known for being married to" text you propose is verbose and unwieldy. Either "is married to" or "is the wife of" is fine. I don't see the harm in "wife", but if you do, "married" is a fine substitute. In reality, writers sweat about these subtle differences, but readers read through them without ever stopping to ponder them. Wasted Time R 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and also think Real is missing the point. For many non-Americans especially ESLers, the meaning of First Lady may not be immedietly clear. It's a terminology fairly uncommon outside the US. However, most readers would immedietly understand what the wife of or married to means. Therefore, it's essential to make it clear. Furthermore, although I'm normally supportive of PC terminology especially when it comes to women, I think Real is making an issue out of nothing. Whatever the origins of the terms "wife of" nowadays, it's used primarily to indicate someone is the wife of someone else, not related to considerations that the wife is the property of the husband. Just as similar, a man might be called the husband of a woman. Generally speaking, your most likely to refer to someone as the wife of or husband of someone in the introduction when they predominant reason for them being notable or for talking about them is because they're the wife of or husband or someone else.

Of course, you might also refer to the fact that they're the wife of or husband of someone else (but probably not in the intro or at least not in the first sentence or two if the husband or wife is noteable independently. In fact, I would say if the person they're married to is not that noteable independently you're far more likely to say they're married to that person. The reason is because IMHO saying some is the wife or husband of someone has the implication for many English readers that this fact is noteable because the person is noteable i.e. because you're making the point that the person is the husband or wife of someone else. If the person is not independently noteable, you'd probably just say they're married to that person i.e. you're just saying that they're married to whoever the other person is.

Unfortunately our society is still primarily male dominated so we tend to have far more women who are wife's of someone else. And it's also true even for noteable women, if they are married considerations and treatement of their husbands is far different from that of wifes of noteable people. However there are cases when men are husbands of. For example, see the Peter Davis (New Zealand) article. Although he's a noteable person in his own right, the key noteablity for him would be that he's the husband of Helen Clark. I don't think anyone thinks he's the property of Helen Clark. (Indeed, she didn't even wish to marry at first but did it ebcause at the time it was not that socially acceptable for a couple not to be married which would affect her chances as a politician).

Nil Einne 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of her nickname?

"Pickles" does not appear once in the article. Given its widespread use, you'd think it would merit a mention - unless people think it would be inappropriate for some reason. Fishhead64 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a cite, you're welcome to mention it. Not being from the US I don't hear much about her and definitely not her nicknames Nil Einne 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accident

This is OT as it's more of a question then suggestions for this article, I hope you all don't mind. I don't live in the US but I found it a bit odd she was not charged. In NZ, in this day and age, I would say it would be extremely unlikely for someone not to be charged if they killed someone in an accident which was predominantly their fault. I don't really know what it was like in the 70s and to be fair, the sentences here are very lenient but the abscense of a charge just seems bizzarre to me. Would you say it's unusual in that day and age or not that uncommon? Does the fact that she was white, rich and female likely have anything to do with it (not saying there was necessarily any direct bribe)? As said, I'm not suggesting anything for the article, just wondering. And yes, I am aware of the reference desk. Nil Einne 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

I cleaned up the controversies section slightly. It's all sourced. Is the neutrality still disputed? Might wanna take that flag down. As no one on this page is even talking about it. --Laikalynx 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see no one is talking about it because it is not a huge deal and this page is somewhat poorly attended. Although it was linked, it did not make good use of its sources. A direct Google search revealed that the Stepford Wives nickname was only mentioned on the Internet in the source and this article [12], and the article quoted Laura as saying something Reuters' writeup did. It also was written from NPOV; whether writing what Laura "famously" said or that she has "long been criticized" is NPOV is up for debate but I don't know where that "Completely Detached from Reality" label came from, at least sounding so official. As it is now (further cleaned up), I think we can take the neutrality dispute down. Minutiaman 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversies section here was created in a hurry by another editor who was having a major attitude problem and was upset that Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies was so long. If you search for just Laura Bush and Stepford Wife (without the Pennsylvania Avenue), you'll find the term has been used somewhat often, but it has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade, which is where it was. Wasted Time R 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinner setting photo?

Just wondering - does this have specific value here? Its obvious that Laura Bush resides at the White House and attends dinners there... I'm sure other First Ladies have had dinner place settings too... Bwithh 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expand lead section

Per WP:LEAD:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

Tyrenius 04:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a template I haven't used in quite some time: {{sofixit}}. auburnpilot talk 05:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do, if you have the time and are sufficiently conversant with the subject. In the meantime, it serves also to let the reader know that (part of) the article needs attention. Tyrenius 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)