Talk:George H. W. Bush vomiting incident

Comments on AFD, quality of cited sources, and general quality of article

I posted this during the AFD, but since this survived the AFD, these issues need to be addressed:

• 1. Reference one is an article simply reporting that Bush got sick and was embarrassed, but doesn't make this incident notable. The news reports when the president goes in for a routine medical exam.
  2. Reference two is a single sentence referencing the incident... the sentence is cited in the article, but a single sentence does not make significant coverage. Again, being spoofed by late night TV is nothing new for the president.
  3. Reference three is a "letter" but is really an opinion piece that reeks with bias and hyperbole that it's value in presenting the facts is seriously undermined.
  4. Refence four currently references to an article of the 25 biggest public meltdowns. The two sentence statement is quoted twice in full and once in part in the article. This is the only reference which gives any credence to the event, but is it still not covering the incident itself, it is trivial in nature.
  5. Reference five basically cites reference 4 and makes an analysis of it. The quote, from an opinion piece, is more or less taken out of context and should be removed.
  6. Reference six is a list of completely unreliable sources.
  7. Reference seven is from Nathaniel Blumberg's blog. Who/what is Nathaniel Blumberg? An unreliable source. If the Baltimore Sun reports this, then find a reliable source that makes the claim... not an unreliable source such as this. Heck, the page the excerpt is form is the Lighter side of the Treasure State Review---a twelve page periodical. And the part being cited is from the bullets below the excerpt wherein the author highlights key findings of the TSR... but no data on the actual Baltimore Sun article that is supposedly being cited.
  8. Reference eight merely confirms that Bush got sick, it says about Bush, in total, "Infection does not result in lasting immunity, so anyone can become infected. Notable victims have included the Queen (on Royal Yacht Britannia) and George Bush Sr (filmed vomiting at a function in Japan)." Guess what, I would not be surprised if most presidents have gotten sick.
  9. Reference nine is a link to the very reliable source, Wikipedia, and the two quotes that Wikipedia is purported to support do not appear on the page. EDIT: Based upon Edison's edit above, I'm going to assume that Berian meant to link to this list. Please note that the article reads, The Houston Chronicle in 2008 said it was the "Number one travel blunder," and "Who could forget" it. Actually, the article does not say, it was the "Number one travel blunder." It does list it as the number one travel blunder, but that is a significant misquote. Furthermore, again, we are talking about a trivial mention. Two sentences does not significant coverage make, per "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
  10. Reference ten has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, it is merely a link to an incident dealing with Cheney.
  11. Reference eleven is supposed to support the statement, "BBC gave significant coverage in 2003" but in reality there is a single sentence in an article on a visit by the Prime Minister to GW's ranch that references it. Clearly not "significant coverage."
  12. Reference twelve is a short one paragraph book review on a book "Dark Prince of Love" which does not mention the incident only that it is set Set against the backdrop of the George Bush presidential years.
  13. Reference thirteen the entirety of the reference to the vomiting incident is, Selwyn's subjects include the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle, George Bush vomiting at a diplomatic dinner during a trip to Japan and Nixon playing the piano. Clearly not substantial or meaningful.
  14. Reference fourteen The NY Times did not, as the article states, that the Bush presidency was discredited by "bad syntax, pandering to the religious right, vomiting on unsuspecting Japanese." The quote came from a movie reviewer for GQ whose article was published by the Times. The article was entitled, HOLIDAY FILMS; When Hollywood Puts Its Spin on the Oval Office and was about how becoming the President was no longer penacle of American aspirations "perhaps because the idea of the presidency as the pinnacle of American aspiration has been discredited by the behavior and/or character of the White House's post-Camelot occupants." Notice, the essay is not about Bush or discrediting his administration, but rather discrediting the notion that the "idea of the presidency as the pinnacle of American apiration." This is completely different from what the article reads.

This article is in sad shape. NOTE: some of the above may not be issues for a kept article, but some of the citations were clearly twisted and manipulated to say things they did not say. Others are clearly unreliable and need to be cleaned up.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Really bad lack of facts.

I'd like to point out that much of this article is based on a highly dubious assumption. There doesn't seem to be any support for the term "bush-suru" outside of English language sources. I did find it mentioned a few places in Japanese but they were either translations (from English) or written by Japanese-speaking non-Japanese. (EFL teachers or ex-pats in Japan.)

The whole idea seems to be passed around in poorly researched newspaper articles that never give any reference other than some other unverified, earlier article.

The incident is real, but the amusing "those crazy Japanese even coined a word for it" aspect is an urban legend. jam (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-30/news/mn-1461_1_japanese-men

TOKYO — Historians and economists may debate for years whether President Bush's trip here this month helped or harmed his cause.

But the trip gave the Japanese something every language needs, a socially acceptable verb for one of life's unspeakable miseries.

In the wake of the President's gastrointestinal woes at a dinner hosted by Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, a new word has been coined-- bushusuru: to do a Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

https://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/04/23/bush-miyazawa-dinner-made-mark-in-u-s-japan-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Not in his lap

Look at the video - he did not vomit in Miyazawa's lap. That would have been hilarious, but unfortunately it's not true, and the one source given here is a web-page which doesn't say anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.101 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Where would the Hot Shots Part Deux thing fit in? Please respond.

Solowing106 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Better than pokemon

Wow, that's all I've got to say. If we have an article about this, we can have an article about anything. Okay, it passed AfD, but why is it rated as "mid" importance in the Wikiproject Japan. Surely there are far more important things about Japan than this incident. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Halcion

Should there be a discussion on Halcion and wether the drug affected President Bush enough to cause the inciden--Patbahn (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I do find it really strange that there's little to no discussion about why he threw up. The History section mentions the tennis match earlier, suggesting perhaps he had overworked himself or something. But otherwise, why did it happen? What was the reaction, outside of popular culture? Was it seen as a diplomatic faux pas, or were the hosts understanding that such things must occasionally happen? --BDD (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Source for SNL skit

There is no source for the SNL skit mentioned in the article. Furthermore, after a cursory google search, I couldn't find any evidence for the existence of the SNL skit. Does anybody know about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.144.167 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to work on your web search skills. It's trivially easy to find. I just added a Newsweek article as a cited source. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)