Talk:Laura Bush/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

conservative employment

The page seems deficient in her employment, specifically during the last decade. She's been given positions to study, write books, worked for a conservative think-tank, put on television, and published several books during this time, aside from her work as First Lady. I'd hoped to find that here. 69.181.145.11 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

split

I saw somewhere that she and her husband were splitting up. If someone can find a reliable source could they add it to the article?--67.140.56.121 (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are unsubstantiated rumors which were started by gossip magazines and/or tabloids. We do not have any reliable sources that say that, plus this is a WP:BLP. Happyme22 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the implications for the Wikipedia page if a female President is elected?

Considering how close Hillary Clinton came at the Democratic nomination for President, and with the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate, I think we should come to terms with the fact that the spouse of the President and/or Vice President will not always be a "Lady." We need to amend this sexed language to make it gender neutral. If McCain-Palin is elected, Sarah Palin's husband, Todd Palin, will not be a "Second Lady," but rather a "Second Gentleman." If Hillary were ever to be elected, Bill Clinton would likewise be "First Gentleman," not "First Lady." On the successor/predecessor boxes we use on Wikipedia, we should consider changing "First Lady" to "First Spouse" and "Second Lady" to "Second Spouse" to make room for this likely future occurrence. --130.108.192.34 (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to take this to Talk:Spouses of the Vice Presidents of the United States. It has been brought up before at Talk:First Lady of the United States. Happyme22 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nickname 'Pickles' isn't documented

There's a redirect, but no explanation to the 'Pickles' nickname. I've heard it was offensive (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/). Should it be included as a redirect if it isn't explained and is offensive?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.145.11 (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to President Bush's ratings not relevant

I removed the reference to President Bush's approval ratings in relation to his wife. GWB's ratings are out of context and not comparable, as "First Lady" is not an elected office. I can find no other wikipedia article where a politician's family member's approval rating is mentioned in their own article. RealityTime (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It serves as an interesting contrast: A president has relatively low approval ratings while his first lady has extremely high approval ratings -- I see nothing wrong with mentioning that. Am I missing something? --Happyme22 (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Traffic accident in Texas

I was quite surprised to see that in the latest Family Guy episode, they made a big deal out of her killing someone in a traffic accident. This reminded me of the fact that she was actually the cause of a friends death by her traffic violation. But why bring that up now? Any ideas or thoughts on that? --David Igra (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be what Family Guy does best. Provoke with some random fact (of marginal interest) and reference it out of context in the "Family Guy"-Manner. What is even more interesting is why there are no charges for involuntary manslaughter. i am not from the USA, but i think the legal-system is somewhat similar in those cases. THAT would be a good topic. Jsteidl (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well wouldn't it be interesting to talk about it? I personally had never heard of this incident until I saw the episode of Family Guy. This might have something to do with me being from England where Laura Bush is less of a personality. It occurs to me that a "celebrity" whose negligence led to the death of a young man may be a relevant discussion point which seems to be given scant mention in her wikipedia article. There is no explanation as to why no charges were brought against her, despite the acknowledgement that his death was a direct result of her running a stop sign. At the very least I feel this incident deserves its own sub-heading within the article.--Solar Eclipse (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scant mention? There is a paragraph in the article. It does not deserve more, per WP:WEIGHT. So what if an animated cartoon talked about it? That does not justify adding anything to an encyclopedia, especially not when the topic is already covered. Happyme22 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a paragraph secluded away in the "early life" section. I don't believe this does justice to the incident. I am not suggesting that more information need to be added. Simply that the information that does exist be given the prominence it deserves as it involves a highly public figure being responsible for someone's death. For those reasons I believe your WP:WEIGHT argument stands more in my favour than yours. --Solar Eclipse (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the facts: She was 17 years old, neither driver was drinking or was in possesion of any mood-altering substances, no charges were filed, it has been recorded as purely an accident, and Mrs. Bush remains unable to talk about it to this day. To elevate this paragraph into a level-two section of its own goes beyond WP:WEIGHT and is nearing POV-pushing, trying to direct more attention to this content simply because Laura Bush is first lady and a cartoon spoofed it. What if her husband had not been elected president? I guarentee it would never have even been brought up. I'm not saying that it be deleted, because it is part of her biography, but I am saying that the information's current context, length, and appearance is more than acceptable. I guarentee that had this been such a big concern, this article would not have been promoted to good article status. Happyme22 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Her age when she committed the offence is not particularly relevant. The fact that neither driver was under the influence of any substance is irrelevant as there is no suggestion in the article that such factors played a part in the incident. The fact that no charges were filed may be a point of discussion, however it does not indicate anything other than the fact no charges were filed. The fact that it was regarded purely as an accident is an opinion and not a fact. If you can cite where it officially states this was simply an "accident" I would love to see it. The fact that Mrs Bush remains "unable to talk about it" is not relevant to any investigation into the matter. This is between her and her relevant mental health professionals. I do not accept that elevating this incident to it's own section contadicts WP:WEIGHT and the fact that I added no additional information should indicate your claim of [[WP:POV|POV-pushing] is spurious. Suggesting that the information is only relevant because of a cartoon is immaterial. The method by which an incident was brought to my attention does not alter the facts of the incident itself. You ask "what if her husband had never been elected president?" Well obviously she would not be considered a celebrity and it is possible this incident would have been ignored. However her husband WAS elected president and in doing so his family was entered into the spotlight of public scrutiny. This is not a new phenomena and wikipedia is not the place to discuss whether such a spotlight is right or wrong. The fact remains that Mrs Bush is a celebrity, in the public eye, and she was responsible through her negligence (according the the pre-existing article) for the death of a human being. This, I believe, is worthy of more than a single paragraph in the "Early life" section hence my editing of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solar Ecliplse (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since everything I said is irrelevant or not important, according to you, what is it? The fact that Mrs. Bush was involved in an accidental (see [1]) car crash is mentioned in this article and was (until you elevated it to a level two heading in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV) written with due weight. I understand that she is first lady, and thus a celebrity, but this is not the place to accuse of her murder, which is what appears to be your motive behind this. Happyme22 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22 is correct on all aspects of this discussion. The accident (yes, accident) was one event in Mrs. Bush's life and already recieves more attention than it deserves; note I am not suggesting we remove any content. To give the accident its own subsection would give the topic undue weight, and the issue of no charges is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you or I think she should or should not have been charged with a crime. It's our role to state the facts as they are and nothing more (theories about why she wasn't charged with a crime amount to WP:OR). - auburnpilot's sock 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I came to the article looking for fact checking on this claim. If it's true that she was involved in an accident resulting in the death of somebody, why not mention it briefly in a short subparagraph about that period of time, with a header like "1976 traffic accident" or whatever year it is. I don't understand why this information should be censored.--Sonjaaa (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not being censored at all. Please read WP:WEIGHT, which discusses how much weight should be placed on certain subjects within an article. You will see that there is a paragraph regarding the traffic accident in the "Early life" section. Happyme22 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I'm sure that Laura Bush and the Bush administration would rather people didn't know about it for political reasons. Because it is such a sensitive subject that I'm sure they have tried hard to keep quiet I think we should respect their wishes and try to keep the information in a quiet place in the article where it is less likely to be noticed, so where it is now is just fine. I do realize that it is a pretty famous topic, even before the Family Guy episode (such as news articles, the Snopes investigation and such). We need to respect the wishes of the Bush family and our government and keep this on the down low. Besides, if it were you that killed someone you would want it kept quiet too, so show the same courtesy here. JayKeaton (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy claims that the person's motive for mentioning this is because he wants to accuse Mrs. Bush of murder. Happy on the other hand is using WP:Weight, which could be interpreted in a variety of ways, and towards an agenda, whether not wanting to show this on the article more clearly, or not. I couldn't even find it until I read from the beginning. But that is all against WP:Assume Good Faith. It is relevant to her life on an encyclopedic article. One cannot deny it is not a serious event. It should be a subparagraph with === === identations. It's not to accuse her or anything. But it's part of her life, and obviously has affected many people involved. One also cannot deny that no doubt there are always people watching articles of their choice to make the articles say what they want it to say and how they want to say it, but again that's against WP:AGF. I don't think it's unreasonable though to give the event a sub-section. In the same ways other articles have sub-sections entitled for example 2008 Presidential Election, Personal Life, Scandals and/or Controversy, and countless other things. It's not ok to just keep citing WP:Weight as a reason not to give the event its own sub-section - because that can be argued on both sides of what is supposed to be a neutral article. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the number of people celebrities have killed in their life time deserves some attention (excluding kills made in war) even if this number is very small like one or two. U.S. American culture places a great deal of emphasis on the value of human life as opposed to some other cultures, so I figure it’s fair game for Mrs. Bush seeing how she’s an American Icon, and is herself a U.S. American. At the same time though, I figured a heading labeled "People this celebrity has killed" sounds a bit ridiculous. Today I discovered the Asterism_(typography)(⁂) which seems to be the perfect thing for the job so I tossed it in for the benefit of the article.Xetxo (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And your addition of that little symbol has been reverted. Wikipedia has a general manual of style, and nowhere does it allow for paragraphs to be set apart with the use of such symbols. The traffic accident occurred in Ms Bush's early life, and therefore is covered appropriately in the "Early life and career" section. - auburnpilot talk 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, can't we just edit Asterisms into the page you referenced?Xetxo (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, that page doesn't appear to have an entry yet defining paragraphs or there usage at all. Again to reiterate, when a celebrity (or anyone worthy of an independently authored biography for that matter) ends the life of another person, some people would consider this to be a prominent event and expect just a bit more due emphasis. It could also be that the paragraph needs more meat, like... it says "Laura ran a stoplight" and the word negligence should probably be included in the paragraph, or at least the fact that it was an open intersection with 100% visibility where the accident occurred. It feels awkward to me.Xetxo (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I gave due emphasis (nothing more than a heading) also, 'accident' is slang so I changed it to 'collision' - it should probably even be 'crash' but I don't know the extent of the damage, to know if that is misrepresenting the damage or not. It would be good if there was some material on why she wasn't charged with the offence. As discussed by others above, it does seem strange ... to kill someone and not receive any charges. --Carbon Rodney 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My friend, this has been discussed many times before. It has been agreed that the most neutral way to go about describing the accident (collision, whatver you want to call it) is by including it in the early life section. No heading is necessary. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

W

who's playing her in the W biopic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to the W. article and see the Cast. Also this comment should be included on the W. talk page, not the Laura Bush talk page, even though it is slightly relevant. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this article is very biased. It barely even mentions her vehicular manslaughter, and even there it portrays her in a positive light. Somebody gotta do something about this. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are disputing the neutrality of the entire article because an event that happened 45 years ago isn't covered endlessly? It already receives an entire paragraph in the "Early life and career" section. To go into greater detail, or give the incident its own section, would present a problem with undue weight; then we'd really have a NPOV issue. Can you be a little more specific in identifying the other issues you see as non-neutral? - auburnpilot talk 00:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article gives only positive coverage of her, and doesn't even acknowledge the existence of criticism of her, except in a a single paragraph. Jonathan321 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, can you please be specific? If not, I intend to remove the NPOV tag. What criticism, specifically, do you believe is out there that is being ignored? Please provide reliable sources to back up the assertions. Thanks, - auburnpilot's sock 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that Jonathan321 has begun a GAR -- I've left some comments there. Happyme22 (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the tag, as I feel the article is still suffering from some neutrality issues. It seems very biased in favor of Laura Bush. Jack324 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because you have not provided a detailed analysis of how the article is "biased" in her favor. Care to do so? It is a good article and passed a good article review. Happyme22 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First lady (twice?)

Laura Bush ... is the wife of the ... current President of the United States, and is the current First Lady of the United States. Sure. Is that not too much? How else could she be first lady?. -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama is First Lady of the United States

Michelle Obama was made First Lady on the 4th November. I'm not stupid as I know this is election day. What I am confused about is, when is the inauguration of Barack Obama? Is Michelle made First Lady on election day? Forgive my lack of knowledge in American politics. -Zorbol (Saturday, 3rd January 2009 - 20:30 to be precise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorbel (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama will be first lady on January 20, 2009 at 12:00 noon, when Barack is inaugurated. But right now and for the next three weeks, George W. Bush is president of the United States and Laura Bush is first lady. Happyme22 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For now, Michelle Obama is the First Lady-elect. After Barack Obama's inauguration on January 20th, we can edit the article to reflect her status as First Lady. Jack324 (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as first lady-elect. It is not an elected position. Jack, take a gander at the George W. Bush and Dick Cheney pages as well -- they do not list Barack Obama and Joe Biden as being their successors-elect. On Jan 20, 2009, at 12:00 noon, we can say that Bush was succeeded by Obama, and Laura Bush was succeeded by Michelle Obama. Until then, we have to be patient. Happyme22 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

$492,798 Plates

Is there any way that we can get a section started on the inappropriateness of these plates? Now, when record numbers of people are being thrown out of their homes, this kind of conspicuous consumption has the feeling of Marie Antoinette's neckless. It just seems that this appalling waste of money when people are suffering is a sin. Has Mrs. Bush commented at all? These look like the kind of things that Bernard Madoff would buy. Perhaps the section should be on the appalling lack of feeling this administration has shown for the people. Perhaps it should include the numerous gaffs made that show the lack of respect for the struggles of most american people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but we don't write things here based the opinions of editors. I will add a mention of the china in the very near future, when I can. Happyme22 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Whom do you mean by "we?" Is that the royal "we?" For which Public Relations firm do you work or are you directly employed by the government? I would like to know who pulls the strings here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha -- no. "We" referrs to Wikipedia editors -- perhaps I should have been more clear. I am a volunteer who edits Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• If I'm missing the point, please clarify, but weren't these plates bought by the White House Historical Association (not Laura Bush or the White House and not with tax payer money). Again, feel free to explain what I'm missing, but how does this fit within a biographical article on Laura Bush? Seems it may be appropriate for the association's article, but not here. - auburnpilot's sock 00:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the china was paid for by the White House Historical Association. As the author of the Wikipedia article on White House china, I feel that a mention of the Bush china in this article is warranted. Only a handful first ladies design and order White House china, not every one (the last being Hillary Clinton in 2000, though the Clinton china was of reduced quantity and not a full set; prior to that, the last full set that was ordered was by Nancy Reagan in 1982). Laura Bush helped to design the plates' color schemes and detail, and ordered them. It will probably be a lasting legacy of hers and no doubt will be used extensively by future administrations. So nothing long, but one to two sentences is okay. Happyme22 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. I wasn't aware of the history behind White House china, and agree that such a mention warrants inclusion. I don't agree with the comment directly below. - auburnpilot talk 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Even as a gift, these plates represent the current fashion for conspicuous and impossibly over-the-top consumption. At a time when so many americans are losing their homes, this foul greed, this love of grandeur is totally inappropriate. These plates should be returned. Surely everyone should see that now, in these difficult times, money should be used to help the poor - not aggrandize our rulers. What respect can we, as a nation, expect to garner from others when we roll about in riches like pigs in slop while our poor starve. Have we no restraint? Have we no class? Are we just a bunch of rich white trash? Why did Laura Bush fail to decline to accept these plates? Why can't she see how inappropriate accepting these is while this nation's finances are in such peril? How disconnected are these people from reality?

Really, this is no different from the CEOs of our auto industry flying in private jets to beg money from tax-payers. How can our government ask for trillions of dollars in sacrifices from its people when our rulers insist on dining on gold plates? Are you starting to see how inappropriate Mrs. Bush's actions are and why that belongs in this article? Do you get it now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're interested in is a blog; not Wikipedia. We have a policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which requires us to write from a neutral standpoint. None of what you've written would ever be included within an article, and should never be used as a reason to include something within an article (it would also likely violate our policy regarding the treatment of biographies of living persons). I can see where a mention is warranted, from Happme22's standpoint, but most certainly not from the angle you've suggested. - auburnpilot talk 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoking

It seems that Laura was smoking and talking to a friend when she drove through the Stop sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation please? Happyme22 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Her friend, Miss Dykes, also 17 at the time, was in the car. See the Wikipedia article on M. D. Douglas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find an article on anyone named M.D. Douglas. Nonetheless, one Wikipedia article cannot cite another Wikipedia article. Happyme22 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

M.D. Douglas = Michael Dutton Douglas. I don't know anything about the smoking, but USA Today ("Mrs. Bush ran stop sign in fatal crash". USA Today. 2000-05-03. Retrieved 2009-01-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)) indicates Bush's friend, Judy Dykes, was in the car with her. Likely more detail than needed, but it does seem to be true (or at least that's how it was reported). - auburnpilot talk 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected (sort of) :) Happyme22 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Accident - caused or involved

It was suggested to discuss this edit here. The snopes article states that "while a teenager, future first lady laura bush caused the death of a classmate in a car accident." I was attempting to bring that wording into the article. The article currently states "In 1963 she was involved in a fatal car accident. Accounts indicate that Laura ran a stop sign and hit another car, killing its driver (classmate Michael Dutton Douglas)." The difference in wording here between caused and involved in is significant, the passenger in Laura Welch's car was involved in the accident, Laura caused the accident. The wording causes implications, which are fully NPOV wording and verifiable. That is my preliminary argument, I have addressed the verifiability issue, and the NPOV issue. What is the objection to including the information? MehTsag (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) TharsHammar (talk)

No one responded, and the other editor has made subsequent edits, so I am changing the article as suggested above. TharsHammar (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No one responded because I just got onto my computer for the day. We are not on a time schedule....

My problem with saying that she caused it is because, apparently, we only have Snopes.com saying that. Take this USAToday piece, for example: It says, "Details in a 1963 accident report say that Laura Bush, then 17, ran a stop sign in the Texas crash that killed a friend in another car." -- it does not use the phrase "she caused it" or something of the like, because we cannot be 100% sure. We don't know what her friend was doing in the car; perhaps she did something to Laura to make her speed forward. We don't know what Mr. Douglas was doing at the time of the accident; he may have been in violation of traffic laws or something of the like. There are just too many unknowns to say defininitively that Laura Bush was 100% responsible for the crash, and that she caused it, no ifs, ands, or buts.

And I would also suggest, TharsHammer, that you provide some thoughts on the matter and contribute to the discussion rather than reverting on the grounds that subsequent edits have been made. Thanks. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not making it clear that I had changed my username to TharsHammar. I know we are not on a time schedule, but when a period of time had passed an you had made other edits I assumed you were satisfied with the comments. In addition to snopes there are multiple reliable source articles which say Laura caused the crash. For example she missed a stop sign and caused a fatal accident that left a best friend dead and public figures who have caused fatal car accidents. There is also the book, The perfect wife: the life and choices of laura bush, which states on page 3, "But the news flew through midland about whose actions had caused the death." You can read that here. Yes your source is ambigious about who caused the accident, but other sources use other words but the same meaning to say she was at fault in the accident, [2] and [3] and [4]. There might be other reasons why the article you cite is vague, I won't speculate, but I cannot find sources stating she did NOT cause the accident. I have provided numerous sources to state she DID cause the accident. Because some sources are vague does not mean wikipedia has to be when the facts can be established to multiple secondary sources. TharsHammar (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise with you. The sources you provide are, for the most part, reliable indeed. But Wikipedia outright saying that Laura Bush caused the accident could lead to many problems. For one, there are plenty of nuts out there that would love Wikipedia to say that Laura Bush caused a car crash and therefore committed murder. I recommend we change the wording to read: "In 1963, Laura ran a stop sign resulting in a fatal car accident that killed her friend in another car."

That makes it clear that, from the sources we have, she is largely held responsible. Thoughts? --Happyme22 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the compromise wording, but not the reasoning used to arrive at it. But I have no interest in wikidrama, so I will agree with this version. I will put it in the article and add a few of the sources above. Will be done within a few minutes. TharsHammar (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Original research?

The statement Mrs. Bush has had a love for books and reading since childhood, and her life and education have reflected that interest. seems to be unverifiable fannish opinion, aka original research. Lots42 (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is unverifiable? It is cited in the body article that she loves reading (see reference number two) and it is obvious that she became a teacher and librarian because of her love for reading (see reference number four). Happyme22 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

pickles?

I just randomly ran across this redirect page: Laura "Pickles" Bush, and at a glance I don't see any reference to pickles here. Anyone have any idea why this exists? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Republican / conservative

I've flagged this up as 'verification needed'. There's nothing in the rest of the article to show that her support is other than for her husband - rather than being a party loyalist. Is she a registered Republican? Stabian (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. She is supportive of Roe v. Wade, comprehensive sex education, and public education; though the most striking would be the fact that she and her family were registered Democrats in Texas for many decades. Of course things can change, but there is nothing to suggest that she has in fact switched her official affiliation. --Tpetross (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

She takes other liberal positions as well. 'Moderate Liberal' or 'Center-Left' might be accurate descriptions of her political views.

67.174.124.77 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of these might also be characterized as 'Center Right'.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous talk text deleted?

Looking at the talk page history there was a great deal of discussion deleted for no discernible reason.

Was there a reason for this? Should the previous discussions be restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.202.225 (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Reneged"?

The First Lady of Texas section includes this sentence:

"She had previously told him that she would not give a speech, but reneged on that promise that July as she delivered a keynote address to the delegates at the 2000 Republican National Convention"

"reneged" is the wrong word here. I suggest "relented and in July she delivered..."

"Reneged" is definitely not appropriate, since it suggests that she broke a promise, which is not what the source says. Even the suggestion in the source that George Bush broke a promise seems dubious. She may have changed her mind and offered to give a speech; that is the impression I got from seeing her talk a while back. In any case, he could not make her give a speech, so suggestions of a broken promise seem wrong.

The placement of this comment is also misleading. I am quite sure she gave speeches during the Texas gubernatorial campaign, and this makes it sound as if the RNC speech was her first.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved the "promise" bit to the appropriate place, adding a few details, and removing the "reneged" part.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In office?!

I notice that Laura Bush, and spouses of earlier US presidents, are said to be "In office" during their husbands' incumbencies (in the right-hand information box). This is wrong. I have read the constitutiom of that country and it nowhere mentions such an office as "First Lady". Then I came across the article on Madame Chiank Kai-shek and she too is said to be "In office" while her husband was leader of the Republic of China (though I admit I have not read the constitution of the R. of C.) A new expression should be substituted for reference to this so-called office unless it actually exists in a specific country. Axel 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

Laura Bush article error

Hi. I noticed this, can't fix it. Obviously wrong date posted. Presumably 2011 should be 2010 in the last paragraph, though I don't know.

"Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health Mrs. Bush and her mother, Jenna Welch, at the dedication of the Jenna Welch Women's Center, 2010

In August 2007, the Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health (LWBIWH) within the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center was approved. This institute began the effort to establish a multi-campus women's health institute in Amarillo, El Paso, Lubbock and the Permian Basin. The institute seeks to integrate research, education and community outreach in a multidisciplinary approach to women’s health.[41]

Named for Bush's mother, the Jenna Welch Women’s Center of the LWBIWH, opened in Midland, Texas, on Aug. 10, 2011, to deliver expert medical care for women and their families. Operating in partnership with LWBIWH, the Jenna Welch Women's Center strives for excellence in research, education and community outreach.[42] [edit] " 202.43.232.78 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Former Democrat

Laura Bush is a former Democrat (see [5]). Category is accurate. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase "raised a Democrat" does not necessarily include her among "former members of the United States Democratic Party", or even indicate she openly identified as a Democrat. It merely implies her parents supported (to an unspecified extent) the Democratic Party. And to be included as a category, the relationship should be important and unambiguous enough to be included somewhere in the article text. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Laura Bush/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I like the structure, prose and amount of content (both textual and photographs). This article is also excellently referenced.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Good use of a wide range of references - all the context is cited properly.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very well done, and I hope you consider preparing it for WP:FAC. I advise a copyedit from someone new to the text, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of editors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I just recently began working on this article after I had the honor of meeting Mrs. Bush on May 23. Again, thanks for the quick, yet very through, GA review. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)