Talk:Barbara and Jenna Bush

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2016 December 5. The result of the discussion was retarget.

Splitting the article

Splitting this article seems like a great idea, these are two different people. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

I totally agree. It seems POV to include them in the same article; they are adults NOT children. Gilliamjf 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. Why are two people covered in one article? Are there any other articles that do the same? Arkon 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen does, but in this case I also strongly agree the article should be split. --Rickscholz 06:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake, SPLIT! --Fluppy 06:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split for sure --webbrg 1 March 2006

Since the General agreement is to split this article, and it seems like a good project for a beginner I am going to attempt this as my first project. I will try to keep a progress log on my talk page. ANy suggestions will be greatly appreciated as I am very new to this. Thanks - Agonizing Fury 06:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for some opinions on what to do with this article when I finish creating the two seperate pages for the bush twins. There are some redirects and links that point to it that would not necesarily be able to point to one or other article. two articles doesn't seem like enough for a disambiguation page, but I also don't want to make it a stub, by having it be two short paragraphs that point to the main article. Any thoughts? Agonizing Fury 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. It's been split now. -- Bovineone 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid?

Does all this really belongs in an encyclopedia? Sure it deserves lots of space in the tabloids, and some marginal space in the rest of the media, but here, I'm not sure.....

Just in case, I didn't write the entry on induhvidual, i didn't even know what it was before. I just moved it from the top to a subpage of Dilbert, where it arguably belongs. I'll try to dig the archives of Princeton to see if Einstein had a car and got some ticket, it could be relevant in his biography..

well, if this is the current events show that Dilbertiana implies, sure. But then I'm a medievalist and this all seems far, far too presentist for anyone to care about in 6 months, let alone over the lifespan of an encyclopedia. Soon, after all, we'll be having to separate their pages, list their spouses, their divorces, their second spouses, etcetera, if we're going to pretend that Wikipedia is anything like an up-to-date resource. By the way, I've already spotted one dead mathematician in the live mathematician list, but I'm leaving it up to those who dwell in the present to find him. --MichaelTinkler

Ah, come on, if the 1911 Encyclopedia can spend its energy on the popes and their scandals, can't we be scandalized by the actions of our modern day notables? btw: the popes were much more scandalous.

Considering that this is a pretty infinite encyclopedia, sure. It's at least as interesting and important as "induhvidual". We shouldn't try to discourage people from adding entries in which they're interested. We should try to make the entries as informative and useful as possible. Remember, Wiki is not paper. There can be up-to-date, instant-interest entries in the Wikipedia, because new editions aren't released every decade, but every second. I don't think worrying about future updates should discourage us from such timely entries. At least, that's my two cents. There's a lot more useful things to do than trying to exclude entries. All IMHO. --The Cunctator

humble? hmmmm. and timely? oh, well. go ahead. I'm not doing anything in particular on a Friday night, either. I wish I were out drinking in Austin myself. Oh, and I agree that we shouldn't discourage people from adding what they like. All in all.

It's not so much the 'current-ness' of the article that bothers me, but the gossipy nature of it. I'm not going to remove it, but I do want my objection noted in the log. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert

Don't these poor women get pages for themselves? What if Barbara runs for president and Jenna leads a Maoist insurrection? Will they still be "Barbara and Jenna Bush"? :)

Yes, they should have their own pages...and the bulk of the article shouldn't consist of their run-ins with the police, of course. --LMS

Jenna Bush breast baring

During one of the inaugural balls in January 2001, George Bush raised the arms of Jenna Bush, who was wearing a sleeveless dress, inadvertently exposing her breasts. At least one network (C-SPAN) failed to notice and skip this and it was broadcast live. [1] [2]

I think the anecdote about Jenna's breasts should be removed. It may be verifiable, but when adding potentially tasteless information I think we should consider the relevance to the topic. All we learn about Jenna from this anecdote is that a) she has breasts (duh), b) embarrassing incidents sometimes happen by, well, accident, and c) sometimes TV directors sometimes make mistakes - in other words, absolutely nothing. All this does gives an inadvertant, minorly embarrassing incident prominence it does not deserve - at least in the case of buying alcohol it was a) reported widely, and b) might be argued to say something about her character and personality. Hence it should go, IMHO. --Robert Merkel 11:02, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Heh, nice edit summary... :) .

I think it should stay. It's an interesting (to some) anecdote. It's the sort of thing that might be mentioned in a biography. The way Jenna and her father (and the media) reacted to the incident does tell us something about them, and trivia is interesting on its own merits.

I share the concerns about undue prominence of the breasts story (and indeed the undue prominence of the run-ins with the police), and the article does need to be balanced up with info on other aspects of the first twins., assuming that there's more to them than what's currently here... Martin 13:37, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Where does the article as presently written make any points in relation to her or her father's reaction to the incident concerned? --Robert Merkel 22:32, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As presently written, nowhere. However, the Wikipedia's incompleteness is an essential part of the way it works. It invites new content. One day someone will come along, see this discussion, and think, "Ah, I think I'll add a bit about her or her father's reaction to the incident concerned." (I think we need a reference, though. It's often tricky to distinguish between trivia and silly made-up stories.) -- Oliver P. 22:46, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So we should leave grubby irrelevant trivia in an article on the off chance somebody in the future might pop by and provide more details on what will still remain grubby irrelevant trivia? You still haven't managed to provide any explanation as to how this could *possibly* be a useful piece of information to anyone. --Robert Merkel 11:00, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Oh well, I'll live :) --Robert Merkel 15:12, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's not grubby and irrelevant in light of the subsequent fuss over another accidental breast baring. The public reaction to the previous incident was zero, presumably in part because of an informal agreement to let the daughters have private lives. As of July 2004 they have freely chosen to enter the public arena, so that question need no longer concern us. There have, so far as I'm currently aware, been no penalties assessed against the stations which broacast the event and no moves to fine the parties involved in this incident. Jamesday 11:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What we really need is an appropriate image to illustrate the article.... nah! :) Martin

What interests the tabloids should therefore interest researchers. Whether or not we find their interest worthwhile or morally sound is absolutely irrelevant. But, yes, the information should be balanced with other non-trivial data. ~Big Neil

Perhaps you're unaware of the subsequent major political fuss over the accidental breast baring at the Superbowl and the FCC enforcement actions which resulted from that incident but not this one? That's one of the things which make this item interesting - in part the question of whether the Superbowl incident was taken as a reference to this incident and in part as an example of inconsistent behavior for two very public incidents. Jamesday 11:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't this one an inadvertent accident and the other a deliberate publicity stunt? Perhaps there's little signficance in them being treated differently? Pcb21| Pete 13:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article mentions C-SPAN broadcasted it live. C-SPAN is a cable channel, and is not held to the same standards as broadcast television. ~

I removed "In fact, in most other western countries 20-year-olds are permitted to purchase and drink alcohol legally" and reworded some parts so it didn't sound like a defensive reaction. Fuzheado 03:19, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So not only do we have to refer to the tabloid tittle-tattle (I removed it once but got reverted), we have to refer to euphemistically in the section title? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By way of comparison, see Alexandra Kerry, which is mostly about her breasts. Not that I agree with that. Wolfman 22:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Content of this article

I came to this article looking for information on what the Bush daughters studied in college. I couldn't find that, but have a couple of suggestions for this article. First, split it into two articles...they aren't conjoined twins! Second, underage drinking is not news... A LOT of Americans do it. Getting caught isn't a big deal either, except that it embarassed their father who courts the puritan vote. Other information like where they have lived and what they studied in college would be nice.

I agree that more practical information should be included, such as majors, but I also think references to their drinking should stay. Rightly or wrongly it seems it is (or at least was) what they were most famous for. Sure, underage drinking isn't notable in general, but neither is anything else they've ever done; all information here is included because they are the daughters of the president. As for the breast baring, I wouldn't be sad to see it go. Comparing it to the superbowl fiasco is quite a stretch. Seems terribly trivial to me. And what was the reaction that was so telling? If it's so notable why isn't it mentioned? -R. fiend 06:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason why both are in this article would be to prevent a disambig page on Barbara Bush, the former first lady, who would be the top hit-getter under that name. Mike H 06:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I detest our current Prez, but this is definitely NPOV:

On July 15, 2004, The Times reported that "White House aides breathed an almost audible sigh of relief when the girls turned 21 [in 2002] and could buy alcohol legally," thereby avoiding any further embarassments to their father.

Should be removed. -68.165.155.78 22:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hilary Duff Defends The Jenna Bush Sexy Dance Moves April 17, 2005, 11:03:30 HILARY DUFF has leapt to the defence of American First Daughter JENNA BUSH, after she was criticised for her raunchy dance moves at a New York nightclub.

Bush was celebrating a friend's bachelorette party at hip club Nerveana when shots were taken of her down on all fours, showing off her thong as dancers looked on in disbelief. And while the cameraman who took the snaps is hoping to publish the pictures on the internet, SO YESTERDAY singer Duff is standing in defence of Bush, daughter of President GEORGE W BUSH.

She says, "I went to camp and Jenna Bush was a camp counsellor at my camp.

She is such a nice girl. You just look at her and (see) she's nice.

"I think that she gets it 10 times harder than every other (23year-old) girl out there, 'cause her dad's the president. She should be able to have fun and do what she wants and not have people antagonising her.

AP, April 3, 2005: Harvard University drew international attention when its students launched a sex magazine, H Bomb, last year. And the mere suggestion that President Bush's daughter, Barbara, may have attended a Yale naked party was enough to garner national media attention and a $1 million reward for evidence by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt.

GWB Addresses American Society of Newspaper Editors Convention J.W. Marriott Hotel Washington, D.C., 14 April 2005: "My daughter, Barbara -- one of our daughters went to Yale and she brought a fellow over the other day. I said, "What are you doing?" He said, "Well, I was in your daughter's class. I'm in Baghdad and I'm working with the State Department to help shepherd the press corps." I said, "Oh, who are some of the characters you've run into there?" And he mentioned a guy named John Burns, who I had known when my Dad was liaison officer in China. And believe it or not, he mentioned Oppel. I said, "I know the old man." (Laughter.)"

Remove the article or split it

Remove the article or split it into two articles one about Barbara Pierce Bush and one about Jenna Bush. Being twins does not make two person to be one.

I saw that Jenna has a "beau" (what's the difference between a beau and a common boyfriend?). Is Barbara "vacant"? If yes, I should tell ny son to have a try...

"Agressive Homeland Security Policy" Section Removal

I removed the section "now that the twins are of legal drinking age, the issue is totally irrelevant. However, Jenna's use of a fake ID is another matter; Bush claims to be a supporter of aggressive homeland security policy, and fake IDs are one tool terrorists use to evade surveillance." I made the edit because: A) it seemed to be a be a political statement, and B) the fake ID incident took place in May 2001--before September 11th--after which the Bush II administration made "agressive homeland security" policy, so it was a political statement that didn't even make much sense. Feel free to revert if you think I'm off base.

Carl Henderson 05:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are they the first First Twins? --83.148.71.6 13:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Removed external links. If the links had been to information sites, I wouldn't have a problem, but this article is biased enough without linking to two malignant blogs. Johnwhunt 14:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Criticism on lack of military service

The Cindy Sheehan article has a list of 'current demands' from the Gold Star Families for Peace that include questions why Barbara and Jenna Bush are not serving in the military. Any ideas how to include this (or not?) Eclipsed 22:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it should. It is not as though either of them are truely public figures insofar as they are only known because they are the children and grandchildren of two American presidents. I'm all for allowing it, but with discretion. Fergananim 23.8.05.

Which one will be the next president?

Most liberals are sure the SCOTUS will declare one of these chicks the president right after Jeb Bush's term, thus establishing a monarchy. But which one of them will be the first Queen of USA?

How is this relevant at all?

Hair Color

Identifying women on the basis of hair color is just sad, unless, of course, they are porn stars. jkr

disambig needs more information

the article currently says

Barbara and Jenna Bush may refer to any of the following people:

Does this sound silly to anyone else? I added some basic parental details but it got reverted. Let's discuss before reverting again. I think the current version] is the happy medium between the lean disambig page and a full blown article. MPS 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a problem here, is that this page should never have been made in the first place as a combined article. But, since it was made, it needs to be kept due to all links to it (including those in history, and interwiki links, which we can't control). Remaining internal links should be changed to point to the appropriate article(s), bypassing this page. So, I wouldn't spend to much time worrying about its contents, as it doesn't really matter. So, you're right that the wording was clumsy, your changes were fine; but it doesn't really matter (we should never direct/point people to this page) . I would be quite opposed to turning this into something of any length, and it should remain a short disambig. --Rob 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are two very classy, intelligent young women

and we should do our best to keep this article free of slander--John Herbert Walker Bush Smith 00:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

There is currently a merge discussion regarding content of this former article, concerning whether to restore this article or merge its content into related articles. Editors who would like to participate are invited to comment at the discussion page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]