Talk:George P. Bush

This article was nominated for deletion on August 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bush family High‑importance George P. Bush is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to the Bush family. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Mexico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas / University of Texas at Austin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin (assessed as Low-importance).

Difficult to see what is the enciclopedic relevance of an article on a 18-year boy, with no obvious relevance whatsoever. —The preceding

He was born in 1976: he's 28 and had mental problems. Unless that comment was added 10 years ago. —The preceding

unsigned

comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .

Agreed that he should not be considered a presidential candidate, both because he is so young, and not as brilliant as Bush supporters think. However, to be fair, I do not believe that he has a criminal record. You are getting him mixed up with his brother,

Not arrested, but many claim he was in 1994 due to a bizarre incident involving an ex-girlfriend. See the Smoking Gun's archive. --BrownHornet21 04:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the statements in this article are not a balanced reading of the police report but merely an adoption of the interpretation taken by "The Smoking Gun" in particular: 1) He broke into the house through the woman's bedroom window. 2) Bush fled the scene 3) They declined to press charges.

These aren't substantiable facts, and they certainly aren't neutral. —The preceding

I removed this from the text:

On December 31, 1994, Bush showed up at 4:00 AM at the Miami home of a former girlfriend. According to the statement, he allegedly entered into the house through the woman's bedroom window and, after entering the home, argued with his ex's father. The report indicates that Bush left the scene, returning in his SUV, which was driven across the home's front lawn. The police took a statement and wrote a report, but no arrest was made and no charges were ever filed. [1]

This is a totally non-notable incident that occured 11 years ago. Brian, please do not put it in again, or I'll request arbitration.--Cuchullain 17:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You aren't the boss of any article on Wikipedia. Request arbitration for a simple article dispute? Ha! You may want to read up on some policies and contribute a little while longer. Can you show me something else that this individual is notable for besides the 1994 incident, and besides being related to some notable individuals? It is a part of his past that is verifiable; it was big enough to get the attention of The Smoking Gun and newspapers at the time, whether you remember hearing about it or not. Your censorship of it while refusing any discussion is completely unwikilike. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 19:10

• Also, 1300 Google hits is by NO MEANS "non-notable". I've seen articles kept on AFD for under 5 Google hits. It also hit The Smoking Gun when it was revealed, so your claim of "non-notability" is invalidated. Unless you can provide an actual reason for it not to be in the article, it should remain. It is both 100% verifiable (as we have a photo of the police report) and notable (a notable event happening to a notable individual). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 19:25

Page protected. Please do not threaten arbitration, and please do not remove sourced information unless you have a good reason to do so. Ral315 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the paragraph in question. I don't normally edit protected pages, but this seems like a legit thing to do by my understanding of the protection policy. If anyone feels I'm in error with this, don't hesistate to bring it to my attention, or change it, or whatever. Friday (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked closely at the issue, but, speaking as an arbitrator, I can say it's vanishingly unlikely the AC would take on an arbitration case on a single content issue on a single page. Speaking in such an apocalyptic manner is unlikely to convince people this is really not worth noting whatsoever (more flies with honey than vinegar, that sort of thing) - David Gerard 20:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke. I'm sorry, Brian, I should have said I would try to bring others into the discussion, not that I would seek arbitration. But I think the information should not be included, as it relates to an incident that occured 11 years ago that resulted in no arrest nor charges filed. It seems to be included mostly to reflect poorly on Bush, for whatever reason, and it has been deleted several times by other users.--Cuchullain 07:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You call it cleanup to delete sections and sources? This incident is the most notable thing for which GPB is known. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-5 14:27

Cuchullain, I notice you have a history of removing true information which might be considered embarrasing from pages on several members of this family. Arker 16:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it's appropriate to put information like that in a biographical article. Having a police report filed on you is not the same as being arrested or even charged with a crime. But the paragraph and the link to the police report, I feel, give the impression that he was guilty of a crime.

But if the information is as important as you say it is and must be kept, then surely a news report from around the time it occured could be used as a source. That would show the incident is included here because it had been reported on in the media, not just because a website had dug up dirt on him through the freedom of information act. Do you disagree?--Cuchullain 01:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it also not important to mention that one's mother is from Mexico? Because I noticed that you oddly removed that from one of the kid's biographies, as well as blanking the external links section. If the only thing these kids have ever been in the news for is their not-so-spectacular past, then that is what they will remain notable for. Even after they become more notable for some other event, these events will remain in their articles because they were most notable for those things at some point in time, just as with Clinton and Monica Lewinski or George W. Bush and his escapades as a youth. We don't delete those things because he is now more notable as being the president. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 02:36

Okay, okay. If you think he was notable in the news for that incident, then add a link to a news item about it and I'll be fine with it. But GPB has been in the news for several other things, like speaking at the Republican National Convention, that are more noteworthy but get comparatively little space in the article.

Also, the Mexico thing at the Jeb Jr. entry was seriously in good faith, in the spirit of cleaning up the article. I think it was smoother the way I put it, though the Mexico line was taken out.--Cuchullain 07:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he is notable for other things, expand those other things (provided you properly source them). Don't delete other stuff because you think it is less significant. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 07:37

I was trying to disambiguate this college, which is in Houston and Jacksonville, but didn't know where the Texas/Florida native went... If you know, the choices are

What is he doing in his life? If he is not doing anything,then I will delete this article,because then he is jus unemployed son of Senator Bush. Ice Cold 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, and a quick google search he is a lawyer in Dallas. He is the son of Governor Bush, and has had quite a few articles written about him. Salsb 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His father was never a Senator, and you can't delete an article by yourself -- you have to use

Jeb Bush, Jr.? --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ice Cold 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes,I agree,I just got caried away. Ice Cold 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree that this should be listed in AfD. Truly, is there anything significant to say about him that justifies a Wikipedia article that does not revolve around other more famous family members? Legis 13:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia is not an endorsement of his individual value. How many people have both a Smoking Gun page and a TIME magazine profile? The standard is "notability". --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Cold is 100 precent right.XXXXXXX 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to nominate it for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 13:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure that i would get enough support yet.Time is still not right for it.But,I will surely do it one of these days... XXXXXXX 11:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was interesting, but his mother and his wife have the same name? What's up with that? —The preceding

The article says "the eldest of three children of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his wife Columba". George P. is married to Amanda, not Columba. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if this gentleman ever amounts to something then this might get lost in the noise. However, since there is so little information out there, I think it's relevant to include the criminal complaint that named him when he was 18. Charges were dropped, but it's still an interesting tidbit until his life's work fills a volume that pushes out such trivia.99th Percentile 02:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. A vandal quietly deleted that incident back in July ("mostly shielded for the remainder"implies something happened!).[1] I've restored the older text. (For some reason this article attracts vandals.) --Dhartung | Talk 10:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. The "mostly shielded for the remainder" wording is almost a direct quote from the Russell Contras article that is sourced. The incident was removed because its libelous. The "Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Your assertion that "the fact that there is no evidence and that charges were dropped PROVES that something happend" only PROVES the nature of the libelousness. Don't put this incident back until you get a source. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 38.112.169.125 (talk • contribs

) .

First of all, you're putting words in my mouth. That's inappropriate behavior for an editor under

assumption of good faith

. Second, you're incorrect about the Contreras wording -- if it's a direct quote, you'll have to show us where. The incident does not appear to be in the Austin Chronicle story as it appears online today, and I don't know if it was in that article in the past. If you're saying the citation does not support the claim, that is correct, and that is all you need to say.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misinterpreted my comment above. If we do not include the police incident, there is no reason to include the "mostly shielded" statement. If we include the "mostly shielded" statement but not the police incident, then we're implying something happened without saying what it is. That's innuendo and does not satisfy NPOV. As for the police incident, it happened and was widely reported at the time. We're not saying anything about it, just that it happened. It is not libelous because we are not saying anything beyond what was reported. --Dhartung | Talk 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the incorrect attribution to the Chronicle seems to be the result of a sloppy edit by Schzmo when converting footnotes. It doesn't appear to reflect a belief that the Chronicle article covered the story. --Dhartung | Talk 16:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please remove the link to Charter Holdings. 16:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)~~ —The preceding

Please do not blank talk pages, or any other page, when adding comments. Additionally, please do not remove properly

Noelle Bush). May I assume from your edit history that you are associated with Mr. Bush or with Charter? I think this is a reasonable request as we have no article on Charter and there's nothing to add from the site such as a biographical profile, but if your object is to prevent the world knowing about his e-mail address, you may wish to reconsider publishing it on your website. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]