Talk:George P. Bush

Difficult to see what is the enciclopedic relevance of an article on a 18-year boy, with no obvious relevance whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .

He was born in 1976: he's 28. 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]]) .

This jerk read off a teleprompter, what someone else wrote for him, at the republican convention, and now he's considered a possible PRESIDENTIAL candidate? I think his arrest records are a little more interesting... including arrested for totally bizarre behavior... he's a nutcase. —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, Jeb Bush, Jr.. Academic Challenger 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 would suggest, merge the article somewhere, such as Bush dynasty driving skills, or Future emperors of the United States :p 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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 Jones College (Rice University) and Jones College (Jacksonville) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bastique (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Did you perhaps mean his brother, Jeb Bush, Jr.? --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,hes Governor.

Still,why this article exsists.Do we have to make articles about any unemployed son of any American Governor??

When I said that I`ll delete it,what I ment was I will propose that it be deleted.Because it would get 90 precent for deleting.

What did Georgey P. ever did to get his own article.I bet any of as did more then him

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

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The existence of an article on Wikipedia is not an endorsement of that person's value. It's here to make Wikipedia useful. See also WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,it would been a long disscusion about whatever this article should stay,but Im sure finaly the decision would be to be deleted without a trace.

But,I agree,Wikipedias first goal is to be useful.Thats why we can let it stay.As long as its clear that this pathetic son of a bitch is nothing more then a little bastard just living of his families fame.But,dont worry,I wont delete it or even propose deletining it,because you`re right,Wikipedia should be useful,before all.