Talk:Bush family

War Crimes

Should Geogie , Rice , Rummy Rumsfeld , Tenant and Cheney be charged with war crimes . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.167.100 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Bush

Is there a way we can work in Access Hollywood anchor Billy Bush [1]? His father, Jonathan, is the brother of George H. W. Bush.[2] [3] [4] Billy's also a notable Bush, but he's not political. Chris N. 22:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shome mishatke, shurely

This article has to be wrong. It says that Richard Bush, who died in 1732, was the father of Timothy Bush, who was born in 1761. There is also a quote from the book "The Faith of George W. Bush" which must refer to Obadiah Bush but seems to refer to Richard Bush. Does anyone know the facts here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.69 (talk • contribs)

According to the current (31 October 2005) page, Richard Bush's son Timothy was born in 1735, not 1761. But that would still make it a looooooong pregnancy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassbur (talk • contribs)

See "http://www.wargs.com/political/bush.html#TimothyBush"
for a summary of the facts, as currently known.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.157.138 (talk • contribs)

Successful political dynasty

Added the particular plaudit offered by The Economist. They were referring mainly to 1,000 days in the Presidential Office but they did discuss (and dismiss) the other main contenders, the Kennedys. Not sure if it should be in the title section, however. --MJW 81.154.201.45 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did You Know

This article seems like a good contender for Did You Know? because of its connections to the royal family in Great Britain, the Pierces, and the Kerrys. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

How Bush and Kerry are related

Bush and Kerry are first cousins, seven times removed.

I seriously doubt that. My first cousin once removed is either the child of my first cousin or the first cousin of my parent. My first cousin twice removed is either the grandchild of my first cousin or the first cousin of my grandparent. In order for Bush and Kerry to be first cousins seven times removed they would have to be seven generations apart from each other, which seems highly unlikely. I suspect they are actually seventh cousins (i.e. Edmund Read and Elizabeth Cooke are the great⁶-grandparents of both men), or perhaps seventh cousins once removed (i.e. Edmund and Elizabeth are the great⁶-grandparents of one and either the great⁵- or the great⁷-grandparents of the other). Can someone doublecheck this, please? --Angr/_comhrá 12:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment. Even 7th cousin seems too close, unless there was later intermarriage between the two families than mentioned in this article. Their common ancestor lived over 3 centuries ago. There'd be too many generations for them to only be 7th cousins, if that is indeed their most recent common ancestor - Nik42 19:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm double-checking this, but based on the Bush family tree I have, he and Kerry are actually 9th cousins three times removed. (For most people that's a population that tops 10 million. Only notable in that it's a recorded genealogy, which after a few generations most people are lucky to have at all.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article mention that George W. Bush and John Kerry are distant cousins? See the John Kerry article under Trivia. Emperor001 21:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indian ancestors

The article says that the Bushes are the first Presidents descended from Indians, but several of President Coolidge's biographers said the same about him. Does anyone know which is correct? - Coemgenus 01:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Coolidge himself reportedly acknowledged some Indian ancestry. Apart from that, the existence of Mary Hyanno (the Bushes' supposed Indian ancestor) is uncorroborated. And the article's flat assertion that no other U.S. president had any Indian ancestry is both impossible to know and highly unlikely. Squib 00:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page wrote in his Nov. 16, 2005 column that Bill Clinton has publicly claimed Indian ancestry as well, thus edging out George W.:

"Later during [a public television panel] show, as if he had been listening to us, Clinton revealed to the world that his own family had 'some Indian blood' on his mother's side. 'Cherokee,' he announced, looking somewhat bemused."

Squib 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"The Bush family is sometimes said to have Native American ancestry. Robert Bolling Jr. (a 10th-generation ancestor of George W. Bush) is the son of Robert Bolling and Anne Stith, whom Bolling married after the death of his first wife, Jane Rolfe, a granddaughter of Pocahontas. [2]"

this should be removed, neither robert bolling nor anne stith were indians, so therefore none of the bush family are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.189.246.113 (talk • contribs) .

I kinda see your point, but it was mentioned in Salon and other places, so it's notable. I reworded a bit so it's clear that we're not just including direct ancestors in this section. Note that other common-ancestor relationships are included in the article. (P.S. Don't insert your comments inside others, and, please sign your comments using two hyphens and four tildes.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um no, you can read it so deal with it. The point is that none of the bush family is blood related to native "americans" so it should be removed, ancestry is blood. hypothetically, would you want your fathers original wifes'(aka not your mother) (who later died or was "removed") family mentioned in your family history?

Salon is media, you should never use the media as a source. stick to reputable sources. "whoever controls the media, controls the mind" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.189.246.113 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry, you're removing material which is properly cited according to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. You may not think much of Salon or "the media", but Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, meaning we derive the content of article from what has been published in books or, yes, "the media". I don't deny that in some cases this is a weakness, but I'd sure be interested in what alternatives you propose. Unsourced edits? --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Connections to the bin Laden family

I see no mention of connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family here or at George W. Bush. Shouldn't something this important be on this page? It's on the bin Laden family page & or the Carlyle Group. Also how does the Bin Laden Family seem to escape the Forbes list of Billionairs?[5] Cparker 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any individual in the bin Laden family is a billionaire. Even the Bushes are not billionaires. (Dick Cheney is richer than any of the individual Bushes, I'm pretty sure, and he isn't a billionaire.) As for the bin Laden connections, they apply only to some members of the family, and are best handled on those specific pages. Also, please do not edit comments unless they are yours. --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bush problem

I had noticed the date myself and hoped to look into it further. For the time being I've rewritten the Richard/Timothy relationship explanations to conform to the document at wargs.com, which seems pretty reliable (calling a conjecture a conjecture). It's quite possibly a question that will never be resolved, of course.

As for Mans Andersson, it's interesting that there's a Swedish ancestor, but that's less than 1% of the current President's genetic make-up, so it doesn't belong in the intro (why not list all the Irish, German, and whatever else too). Some people view genealogy as a kind of panning for gold (look! a king!), others take a more jaded view like Mark Humphrys. [6] I'm well convinced of the latter, besides, very often the "minor" members of a family have just as interesting stories to tell (I recently beefed up James Smith Bush, for example -- wow). --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush twins vote

Why does this page link to the Bush-twins vote. I hardly find it relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.64.83 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was linkspam we other editors failed to notice. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Estimated net worth?

Anybody know? Amazing how these plutocrats manage to dodge the Forbes lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.60.74 (talk • contribs)

Well, to be on Forbes you have to have at least US$1 billion. A recent WaPo article analyzed George W.'s personal wealth at $10-35M (Cheney is well over $100M), and his dad has been pegged previously in the low single-digit millions. Some of the banker siblings like Bucky may well be worth more than Dubya. This would be interesting information to get into the article in some way. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You know that is BS. They have been in the banking and oil business forever and instigated many of the events in history and those trades. You cannot have only a 'few' million and yet be so powerful. The Kennedy's had more money but no real power to back it up - especially after they were murdered. The Bush's must be worth a good trillion dollars, no lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.179.161 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Family history

This page is lacking a summary of the family history. Where does the Bush name originate from? J.J. 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, are you asking about the meaning of the name "Bush", or are you asking how the family rose to prominence? Regarding the latter, I'm working on several individuals' articles, and I agree an overview is needed, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be blind. It's old European Nobility [7]. I like Burke's Peerage 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by such a cutesy response, but being listed in Burke's is not the same as being "old European nobility". Certainly not directly. Bush is more closely related to Churchill than to anyone in the British royal family. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of glad you took the burden to mention the cousinship to Churchill too. But - of course - theres a remarkabel connexion with old European nobility too. Both facts I can't find in the article as yet. I like Burke's Peerage 08:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if your argument is as it seems that the name Bush all by itself indicates pedigree, I'm afraid you're reaching. The earliest American Bush, Richard, was some kind of scoundrel and the (bastard?) son Timothy was just a blacksmith, which does not especially suggest a tony background. It's much more interesting to me that they came from such origins rather than with a silver foot spoon and all. --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To be born with a silver spoon in the mouth shouldn't bee any problem; but a <kidding> reptilian bloodline should </kidding>, you can find the bloodline-thing in the david icke lemma, espcacially here [8] ;-) I like Burke's Peerage 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fmr. President George Herbert Webster Bush II and Fmr. First Lady Barbara Bush's youngest daughter joined the Central Intelligence Agency so was kept out of the public eye. From PanAm 103 until 9/13/2010, the Family was convinced she was deceased. Katherine George Herbert Webster Bush III was the first female CMO recruit and an Operations Officer from 1995 -- 2010. Katbushiii (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Kat Bush III

Louisa May Alcott?

Is it worth including her? She is the fourth cousin, 3 and 4 times removed, of the two Presidents, respectively, closer than the related Presidents mentioned.--Chuljin 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. My personal opinion is that notability requires some connection, e.g. similar profession or some kind of interaction. Related Presidents of a President is notable, a cousin he knew personally would be, but there are literally scores of notable individuals connected to the Bush family. This is not, however, notable, as it mainly reflects their extensive New England heritage. Most people do not have their Xth cousins Yth removed fully researched, but because of their notability, the Bush family does. I've placed information about Christie Todd Whitman (in-law) and Tom Kean (cousin) in their respective articles because the family connection is notable in light of their appointments to key positions. Ultimately, although Wikipedia could include such information, we're not an indiscriminate listing of trivia. We could list every relative here with a Wikipedia article, but that wouldn't be very useful to anyone, and it would create a false sense that the Bush family is uniquely blessed with famous relatives, just because we've gone to the trouble to list them all. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. I apologize for indiscriminately putting it in before. --Chuljin 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all! You've been perfectly polite, and that gets you far on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

White House photo of entire family

The White House took a formal photo of the Bush family the gathered to celebrate George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush's 60th anniversary. [9] Regardless of one's political allegiances, it seems fair to say it is a lovely photo and anyway complete and recent. Should or can it be included here? Minutiaman 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)

Actually, I'd been looking for some time for a higher-quality version of the one here, from the 2005 inauguration. It's probably the most "complete" one there is. Yours has the same low-resolution problem (although it's funny to see the President showing off his socks, maybe that's why!), but has a few more cousins. This one has most of the President's generation, but not his dad's siblings. Here's another from his dad's library from when he was President, again just the current batch of siblings. And in this one you can't even recognize them! --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer the photograph I found because it seems to have everyone in what I call the immediate (first) extended family (meaning the president's mom, dad, brothers, sister, nieces, nephews...), basically everyone alive on the article and then some (those few youngins should be added to it). We don't need second cousins and so forth, and anyway the photo I found lists everyone so readers will actually know who's who. But I don't know how to upload photos so I publicized it here. Minutiaman 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

Does anyone think that semi-protection might be needed on this page? Just rv the work of some vandals, and looking at the history page, I can see that I wasn't the only one who has. Opinions? -- benzo ? ♠♠ 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the vandalism meets the policy threshold:

A page can be temporarily semi-protected by an administrator in response to serious vandalism, in which the page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous or newly-created accounts that blocking them individually is not a solution.

It happens, we revert, life goes on.--Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Diagram?

We should get a diagram of the Bush family.--Johnston49er 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A diagram of the family? Or of the family tree? -- 12.116.162.162 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just added one! RHMI 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the diagram, (and possibly other places) the link to Prescott Bush Jr. looplinks back to the Bush family article. Please, if I've mislead the disscussion please revise it, this is my first discussion article entry Gartral (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Removed a "citation needed" comment about the Economist, on a given date, desribing the Bushes as the most successful political family in US history. The statement itself is surely a citation. Garbled my edit comment though. Oops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmsg (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately, that is not a formal citation that meets the standards in WP:CITE, to which all articles should continually aspire (see the References section). I'm reinserting the template. The Economist has recently gone ad-supported, but the quote is not visible via search engines. It may be available on Nexis, though. It may be better to simply replace it with a citable description of a similar nature. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Senate candidacy unimportant?

I think Prescott Bush Jr.'s 1982 senate candidacy merits a mention. The long term fallout probably led to Joe Lieberman's long term senate career as many Bush supporters against Weicker backed Joe in 1988 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.52.14 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

It's in the Prescott Bush, Jr. article. I don't see the relevance here, especially as the connection you are making is speculative. -- Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnold

George Bush is related to Benedict Arnold through John Lathrop[10], who has over 80,0000 descendants in America including other presidents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbucs24 (talk • contribs)

Garfield connection

I have re-instated le Botelers as one of the Bush - Garfield connections. Yet I have been unable to work out how to reference it. The actual reference is here: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/a/r/J-H-Garner/FILE/0141page.html. The le Botelers appear in generation 19. Pete 09:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This article disproves the royal descent of Garfield ancestor William Arnold: http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=636371.92.70.77 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The le Boteler connection is not a royal connection, although the le Boteler/Butler family were minor aristocracy. Far from it ... the Butlers produced Wild Bill Hickok as well. It is, however, a clear connection between the Bush and Garfield families.Pete 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But the article shows that the PARENTAGE of Garfield ancestor William Arnold is not known.131.215.108.211 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other notable relatives section

Can anyone source these, especially the Charlemagne claim? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.79.144 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The charlemagne claim is totally false and why is there a link to a conspiracy website: http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Anzeruthi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the Bush family descends from King Edward I "Longshanks" of England as they are said to, then they would indeed also descend from Charlemagne, as Edward I was himself a descendant of Charlemagne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.25.158 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have a (direct, though mixed-gender!) line leading from Rurik to Bush. Verified the first and the last generations, but not sure about the middle.--Alexmagnus (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the mention of his Native American ethnicity?

Who deleted this? When was it deleted? Why was it deleted?Pistolpierre (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How do yuo know if it was true and it was probably unsourced.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierce/House of Lorraine Connection

Does anyone know where this can be confirmed? I haven't found any other source on the web confirming this connection, and the link that it uses as a reference doesn't provide support. SocraticPrince (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Family tree

Edited family tree to add some names. Also, genealogists usually list women by their birth names, which most of the tree did already, but I fixed the parts that didn't. That gets rid of redundant information (husband's surname) and adds useful information (their middle names, many of which were family names). Added middle names for the men where possible too. Removed several self-referencing wikilinks. Also, the tree doesn't list the offspring of several people (Jonathan, William H.T., Marvin, Dorothy, etc.), so I labeled it a "selective family tree." Ariadne55 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit more missing from that family tree. I don't have the time to fix it, but here's a link to what seems to be a complete one. Maybe just include this in the footnotes, since it's pretty big.

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/media/thefamily_family_tree.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.204.212 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"He's his own grandpa"

James Smith Bush is listed and linked twice in the diagram. He is both the Grandfather of Prescott Sheldon Bush and Prescott's sibling. I don't have a proper geneaology to know whether the sibling is correct and named for granddad, or an error (or if the error is in grandfather's name). Currently, the sibling James Smith is linked to the same wikiarticle on the grandfather James Smith Bush, making him his own grandfather, like in the joke. I've deleted the link, but can someone with information verify who is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotTires (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction confusion?

What Vice President? --62.243.82.5 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved this comment from the top of the page to here, as new comments go on the bottom of talk pages. That said, I think the anon poster inadvertantly raises a good point. The answer to his question is obviously George H.W. Bush, in refernce to his days as Regan's VP before becoming President himself. But, I can see where the confusion might arise, as the current phrasing of the introduction, by listing "two governors, one Vice President and two Presidents" implies five separate individuals, where in truth there were only three family members to hold those offices, George H.W. and George W. having each held two separate offices at different times. There must be a better way to phrase that to make clear that we're speaking of a smaller number of individuals, but I'm not sure how to go about it without specifying names in the introduction, which I don't think would be appropriate for an overview article like this one. Hopefully another contributor can take a crack at it. oknazevad (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pauline Robinson "Robin" Bush

I don't think that any link to her on the family tree should go to a book that psychoanalyzes her brother. If there isn't a valid connection as to what she has done, then it should be left blank with no link. Quite simply, given the timing of the edits, the link was there simply to give less reason to delete the Bush_on_the_Couch article. However, I am uncomfortable making the change without any sort of discussion. I'll change it eventually if I don't hear a good reason not to, but I'll give it time first. Mentor397 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This family tree should not be speedy deleted because in the U.S. and its state of Florida there is no blanket copyright on a public figure's genealogical data.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting claim - but one quite unlikely to succeed. Kitty Kelley's book is copyright - and it is clearly the source which you used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The book is a reliable source, and can be used as such for this information..JOJ ^Hutton 21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is something called "copyright" and use of any substantial amount of copyrighted material is a copyright violation. In the case at hand, the entire tree was pulled from one copyrighted book, and thus is a copyright violation. Clear? Collect (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

She did not create the family tree. I assume the little sperm and the little eggs did. If she did not create it, she does not own it, therefore she cannot copyright it as if it is a creation of her own accord.JOJ ^Hutton 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Tabular family trees can be copyrighted. They are not the "sperm" business you suggest <g>, but the result of reasearch. See, for example, Copyright Fundamentals for Genealogy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice link. Did you read it? It proves the point I made earlier that she does not own the work. Some passages read:

All that’s protected under copyright is the author’s original expression. The protected material must have been independently created by the author with at least some minimal amount of creativity. Anything in a work that isn’t the author’s original expression isn’t protected by his copyright.

No one can claim originality in a fact. At best, a person may discover a fact. If he discovers it and documents it, he has not created it. He has only reported it. There is no originality.

Many genealogy compilations aren’t sufficiently original to be protected by copyright. Since facts can’t be copyrighted, to be eligible for copyright protection, a factual compilation must have some amount of originality in either the selection of the facts, the arrangement of the facts or both. And, then, the only part of the compilation that’s protected will be that which has originality.

Like I said before. She didn't create the family tree (the facts), therefore she does not own (copyright) the facts.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And thst "expression" has been copied. Cheers - I have had to follow copyright compliance online for thirty years now, and my contracts required me to scrupulously enforce copyright rules. Collect (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well in your own words, Interesting claim - but one quite unlikely to succeed. Kitty Kelley's book is copyright - but the facts within it are not. Cheers.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The form of the table is, moreover, not a "fact" and some of the names listed in it are only found in her book AFAICT -- which means there might be a name which is deliberately inaccurate. When asserting that something is a "fact" - when a source has a "copyright trap", the only course is to make sure every name has at least two sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two sources. And are you asserting that there is an error in the family tree? What part is deliberately inaccurate? If the Keller book has an error, no one has ever mentioned it before, to my knowledge, so its assumed to be accurate, since its a peer reviewed reliable source. Your attempt a a speedy deletion of the template was denied. You have gained no supporters and have not shown any wikipedia guidelines to back top your claim of copyright violation. Until such time I suggest that you give up your feeble attempt at deleting this information from Wikipedia. A fact is a fact is a fact, and there are no copyrights on facts and the form of the table in the book is not the same used in the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

HSG initially used one and precisely one copyrighted source. As for naming any "copyright traps", that is one of the reasons for not lifting sections of copyrighted material from any source. Courts may find copying such to be a copyright violation, and the "it is merely a fact" exclusion fails, but it absolutely runs afoul of Wikipedia's requirement of "verifiability" for such a claim ibce the copyvio has been noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is lifting anything from anywhere. WP:V says that all information must be attributed from a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that collects information from secondary sources in order to provide a tertiary source for educational purposes. Courts may find lots of things, but you still haven't said what you think is incorrect in the source. Unless you have a specific example of what is incorrect, then it is assumed to be correct, and an allowable fact under Wikipedia guidelines and policies.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I stated one good reason why we should not lift large amounts of material from a single copyrighted work. See WP:CV for the applicable policy. A copyright violation does not require that the information copied by wrong <g> so that suggestion is "right out." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• In point of fact,--the table was not compiled from a single source, which the article history, indeed, the conversations above on this very talkpage, amply verify. (Actually--and feeling as put-upon by dodgy shenanigans ((per my editorial pov, at least)) as did the fictional sergeant schultz: w rgd the chart's familial relationships/dates, I contributed nottthing!--nottthing!-nottthing! (please see the following diff of an arbitrary edit toward the chart's actual creation).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

'Two U.S. Senators'

Who is the other senator? --SchutteGod (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bush family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202192430/http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu:8090/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=salem/texts/bios.xml&style=salem/xsl/dynaxml.xsl&chunk.id=b42&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes to http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu:8090/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=salem/texts/bios.xml&style=salem/xsl/dynaxml.xsl&chunk.id=b42&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031218082226/http://www.cnn.com:80/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/president.bush/ to http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/president.bush/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Attention needed at Talk:Bush–Davis–Walker family political line

Please see Talk:Bush–Davis–Walker family political line. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Chester Bennington

Chester Bennington claimed to be related to Barbara Bush https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmYQy-vzeBQ&ab_channel=DehCodeParadise 176.59.17.155 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• GWB Lombardi.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First family?

The article currently says near the top of the lede that "the Bush family was the First Family several times", blah blah blah. This is somewhat misleading: the title of the article, Bush family, refers to the dynastic aspect of even distantly related people named Bush; the term First Family refers to the immediate family who dwell in the White House. Should be reworded to make it more clear; simply saying who was President would be fine without using the term First Family at all. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)