Talk:Reggie Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Return specialist?[edit]

Reggie bush returned just 4 punts during the 2007 season. He has never returned a kickoff in his nfl career, is he really a return specialist?

I guess the two returns for touchdowns (and nearly, a third) against the Vikings on October 6, 2008 pretty much answers this question. Newguy34 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote page for Reggie[edit]

Reggie Bush is now 6'0 not 5'11] SOME WIKI OFFICIAL PLEASE CHANGE.


Reggie Bush is now 6'0 not 5'11] SOME WIKI OFFICIAL PLEASE CHANGE.

Documentation:] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

are you serious? you're really bothered about one inch of difference?

He has a daughter Name Simone Hightower/Bush and she would like to meet him one day —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All the quotes from Reggie are great, but they should be under a Wikiquote page, they don't belong in a Wikipedia article.

Reggie Bush is now 6'0 not 5'11] SOME WIKI OFFICIAL PLEASE CHANGE.

Documentation:] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The poop Bowl[edit]

The last sentence almost seems to imply that Bush is solely responsible for USC's, which is purely speculative at best, and biased at worst. I suggest removing it, since the second-to-last sentence demonstrates the mistake's importance, which is the point of including said information.

I agree. Being a Texas Longhorn fan that paragraph most of it is POV. Putting all the blame on Bush. Bush is not best remembered for that. In my point of view, he is best remembered for having less than 100 yards in that game. Also in my POV, the 2005 Rose Bowl game is probably best remembered by one player and it is Vince Young. To sum it up my POV reply, yes the POV paragraph needs to be changed or get rid of. ;-P --J. Nguyen 02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, FYI, "Still Bush had an impressive performance, amassing a total of 279 all-purpose yards (82 rushing yards, 95 receiving yards, 102 kickoff return yards) and one touchdown scored." He had more than a hundred yards on the day. Besides, I was really only concerned about the last paragraph. ProfessorFokker
Of course, I was referring to rushing yards. Sorry for not clarify. --J. Nguyen 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

do you even lift?[edit]

Can we get a fair-use or copyleft image? A cover of Sports Illustrated is probably the best bet. See Vince Young for examples. Harro5 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we can't do that. Go figure. - Davis21Wylie 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How about the cover of NCAA Football 07? We could say it shows that his football prowess earned him the coveted spot, one that is only available once a year. --Bobak 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that is ok. I think we can use that image for the page about the game, but not this one. However, a low-res cover of a Sports Illustrated would be ok. --Deville (Talk) 00:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Forward lateral"[edit]

(which he actually threw forward, an illegal play)

I removed this line. The official ruling (that is, the one made on the field) is that it was a lateral. Even if analysts disagree (not that there were any sources cited), you can't present their analyses as fact. TaintedMustard 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand this link with Drue Dobson.

Until someone can present a citation stating more than one expert believes that the ball went forward, I am removing the phrase "which some believe went forward." The game can be purchased and viewed on DVD, and the in-game commentary makes it clear through replays that the ball did not seem to go forward. I do think it's that any time something odd and unexpected like this happens in football, such as the Music City Miracle, the Immaculate Reception, and the Bush Push, the only claim to compromise the validity of the event is that it violated the rules in some way.J. Charles Taylor 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)  Specifically this part: "Parry seemed taken aback when his Pac-10 counterpart, Sorgen, contended the Big Ten instant replay crew missed yet another critical call in the national championship game. The play in question took place early in the second quarter and before the officials realized the second monitor was hooked up to the wrong television feed. 

USC led 7-0 and had the ball at its own 45. Quarterback Matt Leinart passed to Reggie Bush, who carried the ball to the Texas 20 before his attempt to pitch the ball to teammate Brad Walker went awry. Texas recovered at the 18 and kept possession after officials ruled the ball was a fumble. But Sorgen said video replays showed the play was a forward lateral, which means USC should have maintained possession. The Longhorns drove to a field goal, making the score 7-3. "I don't know why the Bush lateral play has stayed under the radar the way it has," Sorgen, a USC graduate, told the Riverside Press-Enterprise. Responded Parry in an interview with Yahoo! Sports: "Verle is for the Pac-10, so of course he's going to push the envelope in their favor. Later Parry agreed with Sorgen's assessment but defended the Big Ten's instant replay crew while saying video replays of Bush's supposed fumble "indicated the pass was a little forward. But that's going in slow, slow, slow motion. Told you so. Besides, I'm a UCLA fan, so to me it is worse that he was stupid enough to throw the ball forward.CHernandez 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want sources that I was right go to Yahoo SportsCHernandez 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Legacy" section[edit]

Is it really appropriate for a still-active player to have a "legacy" section? I think it needs to be broken down into something more fit for this case. ♠ SG →Talk 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

michael jordan had a legacy pretty much all of his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bush is no Michael Jordan. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold Out[edit]

how about a hold out section because this guy has to be the greediest player ever he wants number 1 money when he wasn't the number one pick and now threatening to sit out this year how can you do that to a city that is counting on you people lost everything and he is going to bitch about a few million how selfish is that ?

Let Reggie Bush do what he wants. He isnt fully a Saints yet if he didn't sign a contract yet. If he goes back to USC, we will see if he can still do amazing stuff and plus, it will boost up his draft stock. Let Reggie do what he wants, hes a grown man.

--JT55 06:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)JT55

A) He can not, I repeat - can not, go back to USC to play football. By declaring for the draft and hiring an agent, he forfeits his eligibility. B) This section has become obsolete because he signed a 6 year deal with the Saints as of 7/30/06.

To be honest with you, I really think he SHOULD sit out the next year. Let's see how good this team is without him, hopefully in the next draft they get someone who has a better attitude than this greedy piece of crap, also known as Reggie Bush. Pardon me if I offended anyone, but if you have the hopes of a whole city like New Orleans sitting on your shoulders, then you shouldn't be acting like a child, who just can't get what they want. Like how he's been acting this past year. I was hoping that he would've never gotten up from that hit he took in the first few minutes of the game against the Eagles, I think is who they played. Correct me if I'm wrong. Halo3master5000 09:30, 05 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure this newly added section is necessary, and the fact that it's just quotes from what I assume is a copyrighted article makes me unsure it should be included at all. Mishatx 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC) REGGIE 25 BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! \..

NFL Debut[edit]

This section is useless since it has conflicting statements throughout. Reggie's "first interception" is listed among his important stats. He is said to have scored a game winning toughdown, then later it is said he has nver scored one. If this section can't be kept up to date and properly edited with correct data, it should be removed. Otherwise, the entire article has no credibility.

^---You misread the section. He scored a touchdown on a punt return, but has not yet scored a touchdown running the ball or receiving the ball. Those are different stats, and the statements do not conflict


If this article is truly to be neutral, it should contrast all of the mention of his hype and "matrix-type" moves with the fact that he has been a bust as an NFL first rounder through half a season. I tried to add some things along this line but some idiot keeps reverting immediately, even though my statement that he had 208 yards rushing through 8 games with a 2.6 yd average was factual. 22:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would add that it does NOT violate the principle of neutral point of view to point out that some people consider Bush an NFL bust. If the article said "Reggie Bush is a bust," that would not be neutral. However, merely pointing out that some people hold this point of view, backed up by cited articles, does not violate neutrality. It is simply a statement of fact. 21:55, 08 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that the claims must be 1) attributed to the critics specifically, 2) must not come from blogs and opinion pieces (as they currently do), and if controversial, 3) should be discussed here first. In addition to the NPOV policies, there are more restrictive BLP policies, which are being violated here. The material, in its current form, is inappropriate here. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So therefore it is never appropriate to mention any kind of opinion about someone? Look, I realize you must be a Reggie Bush fan, but you are blind to reality if you don't think there is a widespread belief that he has failed to live up to expectations in the NFL. I will no longer attempt to edit this article and good luck in your continued efforts to censor it. 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckygoon (talkcontribs)

It's not about censorship; it's about Wiki's policies. If you want to participate here, you must follow those policies, which are restrictive in the case of BLP's so as to protect the subjects of the article. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
But what's wrong with the information in question? It is a a fairly widespread belief (even if it is misguided, in my view) so it deserves mention here somewhere.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently what's wrong is that it is an opinion, albeit a widely held one, and, according to QueenofBattle, it is therefore inappropriate. My question is: Why is it appropriate to include an opinion that an athlete is the greatest ever (see: Roger Federer), but an opinion that an athlete is a disappointment is out of bounds? Luckygoon (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I do think the paragraph in question isn't entirely appropriate, but there is definitely nothing wrong with presenting varying opinions on the guy.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to include that "so and so expert thinks Reggie Bush has been a bust" that would probably be OK, as long as it comes from something that qualifies as a reliable source. But, to use a weasel word like "some" or "many" or "there are those" is inappropriate. There is no proof that anyone can provide that is is a "widely held" opinion that Bush is a bust. If there is, simply find the reliable source that says so, and we can proceed. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
QueenofBattle, I am waiting for you to edit Roger Federer, which states that "many" people consider him the greatest tennis player of all time. After all, "many" is a weasel word and any source which makes such a claim is, by definition, an opinion piece. Luckygoon 05:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
What we are talking about here is this article, not about any others. But, for what it's worth, I can only try to save so many articles from shody weaselness. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, we use what the reliable sources say. Most of the reliable sources say that most of the experts don't say Bush is a bust. Some of the reliable sources, however, say that some of the experts say that Bush is a bust. So, making a statement that something is a universal fact when it is merely a widely-held belief (very widely-held, as the case may be) is inappropriate here in Wiki-land. According to this logic, we'd have to include 'many' or 'widely considered' to the opinion, otherwise its a pov push. (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Cute. Especially so, given that I recognize the plagarism of my words from an unrelated discussion at an unrelated talk page (the creepy stalking, aside). But, this is very easy to resolve. Let's see the reliable sources. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This Sentence makes no sense[edit]

"Bush has also already set an amazing record. He is the second youngest NFL player with the largest money in endorsement deals this early in his career, amounting to roughly 5 million dollars, but also sure to grow."

Not only is it grammatically very bad, it is pretty much nonsensical. Does this mean he is the second youngest player to get 5 million in endorsements? And there's no source. Very bad. Also the play he scored the touchdown on, as referenced in the last line of the article, was a double reverse, which is different than a traditional reverse.

Reggie Bush's touchdown play was a single reverse. The wikipedia article on the reverse has a section explaining the difference between the two. If the quarterback hands it to a player, who hands it to another player, it's a reverse. A third handoff needs to be made for it to be a double reverse. On Bush's touchdown, Brees handed the ball to Colston, who handed the ball to Bush running the other way. The ball changed direction once, so it was a single reverse. Had a fourth player been involved, it would be a double reverse. Because the double reverse is so complicated, it rarely works and it's rarely tried. Only one has been attempted this season, by the Patriots. Brady to Maroney to Caldwell to Jackson. I think the article needs a whole lot of improvement, but not there. 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much nonsensical? You're far too generous. (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is maybe the worst Wikipedia I've ever read. Terrible tone, and not objective at all. Some examples:

"....and electrified the sold out Louisiana Superdome." Electrified, you say?

"Bush had a decent performance" Opinion, no? One could also say he lost the game for the trojans with his ill advised lateral.

"The 2005 season was electrifying" Was it now? Opinion?

"When head coach Pete Carroll recruited Bush for Southern California, he envisioned using Bush as a five-way threat." I can't imagine how that would make sense to anyone.

"The freshman quickly proved he could carry, catch, throw and return the ball with college's elite." He only threw the ball a handfull of times for less than 100 yards.

"Many Texan fans booed and it is reported that some cried on draft day when The Texans passed on Bush" I've never heard anything about anyone crying. No source on that one either. Reported be who?

I could go on and on.

Somebody should fix this thing

Yep, I agree with you completely. Anonymous editors have had free reign on this article with the exception of simple vandalism being reverted, hence you get a jumbling of unsourced claims and opinion throughout the article in a non-NPOV manner. It needs severe cleanup. VegaDark 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"five way threat" - "carry, catch, throw and return the ball with college's elite." That's 4 skills. This article is hilariously bad. (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This ENTIRE article is written on about a 4th grade, sub-USA Today (see: USC grad) level--it's incredibly biased as well. There is scant mention of Bush's tremendously "disappointing", and "underperforming" rookie season (nagging NCAA inquiries, perhaps?) where he was flat out beaten for offensive ROY by BOTH his most recent Rose Bowl foe in Vince Young AND his ever-present cross-town nemesis in Maurice Drew--ANY attempt to edit/add this article (to interject SOME truth) gets DELETED!! Basically, this article reads like some star-struck, pre-pubescent fan letter to an over-hyped, overpaid flash-in-the-pan. This article is blog fodder, no more... 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Truth

While I don't disagree that the article needs work, I do think that calling his rookie campaign "tremendously disappointing", and saying he 'underpreformed' is going to far. But this article needs lots of work.Highly Calculated 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture (Saints)[edit]

Needs a good picture (Saints) Dcr1256 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, It doesn't. The article already meets the GA requirements in terms of pictures. Using pictures from Bush's career is almost impossible, since the NFL has a strict copy right on thiner of pictures, --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the article could use a more recent picture, preferably in a Saints uniform. I don't know how to go about getting that, but if you look at other prominent NFL players' wikipedia pages, they don't have college photos of them. 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


How the hell did they get their hands on tapes over a year old? 21:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Davidleman566 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)davidleman566 It should be added that in the NFC championship it was Reggie Bush who was taunting the bears after the 88 yard run. Pointing his finger at Brian Urlacher as he was running into the touchdown.

Reggie's Girlfriend[edit]

Reggie Bush is currently dating Ciara the singer. I think that this should be added to his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Ncaafb07.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Ncaafb07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Bush (Height)[edit]

Reggie Bush is now 6'0 not 5'11]

Documentation:] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


  • This page in under CONSTANT fire from vandals, we need a semi protect. Jedibob5 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can only second that. --Spdobro 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

4.6 Backwards?[edit]

I've read on multiple websites that Reggie Bush once ran a 4.6 second 40 yard dash backwards. Does anyone have a source or any other way of confirming this? Kostaskubes 06:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple problems[edit]

first off this quote, "This is one of the most controversial calls ever made in sports" seems a bit excessive. It was mildly controversial at best and I feel it should be changed...the sentence sounds bitter.

secondly, aren't there a lot of controversies surrounding him about money he may or may not have taken while he was in school? I feel this sould at least be a small section in the article; it is quite relevant. 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More problems[edit]

In track, he won many honors and ran a 9.32 100m in the California state championships. He was named football MVP four years in a row.

That's world record time. Removed. (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


I think that something should be mentioned on how Reggie is a part of one of the if not the biggest cheating scandals in NCAA history. What many people don't know is that Reggie Bush's parents moved into a 750,000 thousand dollar house after he signed with USC. This is rather odd considering that his parents both had jobs that would make it impossible for them to ever afford a house that cost that much. And to prove my point the sports adgent that paid for the house admitted to buying that house for the Bush's so Reggie would go to USC. The adgent that admitted this said he was willing to testify against Bush leading to prosecution by the NCAA. This would strip Bush of his heisman, USC's national championship season(Notice how I only say one. You have to play in the natioanl championship game to be the national champions.), and USC would also be forced to forfeit any game that Reggie played in. Along with all of that USC would be placed on probation for a number of years. If you don't believe do some more research and u will come to the same conclusion I did, REGGIE AND USC CHEATED!!!!!

He's also part of some college day rape scandals regarding still student Sarah Corruccini who did not testify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a shit?►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


This is, by far, the most whitewashed Wikipedia article I've ever seen.

Virtually all news I've heard about the guy this past year has regarded the fact that major NCAA violations were broken on his behalf while at USC. An entire book is about to be published on the subject. Yet there's virtually no mention of this on his page. Disgraceful. USC fans obviously camp this page and have no integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to finally see some mention of the NCAA investigations on this page. I have checked it often over the past 2-3 years only to find absolutely no mention of their review of Mr. Bush and USC until today. JShea44 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Arnt u dating kim kardashian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


is reggie bush a bust or what--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. In four years he has rushed for less than 2,000 yards. Chris Johnson did more than that in one year. His rushing yards have gone down every year since his second year and he just made it to 4.0 a carry for his career this year. That's not good for the 2nd overall pick in the draft. He's lucky the saints are good are more people would call him on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


should the Controversy section be deleted? the exact same information is repeated at the end of the article under Personal Life. one section needs to go. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, as it is repeated in the personal section below. Its own section seems to give it undue weight. Newguy34 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Protect? Semi-protect? Something?[edit]

Seems to be a high level of vandalism. Should this page be protected on some level? Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


"In training camp, Saints receiver Joe Horn dubbed him "Baby Matrix" because of his seemingly impossible evasive maneuvers (obviously comparing him to the movie The Matrix, which features characters who move faster than humanly possible to dodge bullets)." This is too funny. If it's so obvious, why is it mentioned? (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


I think that the page should show that Reggie Bush played at USC from 2003 -2006 because his last game at SC was January 4th 2006 at the Rose Bowl vs. Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NCAA investigation[edit]

I have reverted some of the details added by a user given that the investigation is already adequately discussed in the article, and any conjecture as to what will happen with his Heisman if he is found to have improperly taken the gifts is just that, conjecture. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it's conjecture ... the story itself says that if these allegations are found to be true, Bush could lose his Heisman. Blueboy96 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
But, why do you seek to have the "extra" information included? It most certainly doesn't inform the reader any better. The article says the NCAA is investigating, and that Bush denies any wrongdoing. There really isn't much more to write about it at this time in a BLP, which by the way, is supposed to cover his entire life. Hence, including anything more enters into "undue weight territory." Since the investigation (and any possible results from it) are clearly in unchartered territory, there is also a probability that he could not lose his Heisman. So, entertaining conjecture on the off chance that he may lose his Heisman if it is clear that he broke the rules and if the NCAA decides to pursue sanctions is a bit too much crystal ball. Even if it is suggested as a possibility from the story itself. Geez, even look at your statement above seeking to include the information, and the use of the words "if" and "could". Surely, a neutral poiint of view doesn't include such weasal-ly words? QueenofBattle (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from JohnPaul1977, 12 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} The NCAA found that Bush had received lavish gifts from sports agents Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels from at least December 2004 onward, including a limousine ride to the 2005 Heisman Trophy presentation and a rent-free home.

The NCAA found this his parents received a limousine ride and a rent free home. Not Reggie Bush.

JohnPaul1977 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.
Not done Avicennasis @ 03:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bush phone call to Pat Haden[edit]

On August 12, 2010, Bush called Pat Haden to express regret over his actions. I removed the sentence that stated it was the first time Bush acknowledged the allegations were true. Notice the important distinction between Bush's psychological motivation (guilt over the resulting sanctions) and the factual nature about whether or not the NCAA's findings are true (remember that the NCAA is not a criminal enforcement agency; they don't have to prove things (to anyone) or do so beyond a reasonable doubt). The interpretation that the allegations are true or that Bush's phone call constitutes him admitting to the truth of the allegations is not contained in the USA Today article which is the source provided. Obamafan70 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. In fact, the August 13 Los Angeles Times article about this makes the point more emphatically. The headline is: "USC Athletic Director Pat Haden gets a phone call, but no apology, from Reggie Bush; the subhead reads: "Haden says the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner, who was at the center of violations that resulted in major NCAA sanctions against the Trojans, was contrite during a conversation last week. But, the AD adds, "Never did he say 'I'm sorry.'" And Haden is further quoted: "Never did he say 'I'm sorry' or 'I apologize,'" Haden said. "Never did he say, 'I lied to the NCAA' or 'I took stuff.'"--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep this article's heading sound[edit]

"In most recent news, Bush was spotted with Miami,FL native Gina Jaramillo. Sources say they were all over miami displaying public display of affection. Sources say its looks like their relationship is getting serious."

I deleted this addition to the heading. Here's why:

  1. Recent news doesn't belong in the heading. If there is something notable to include, then it should be able to stand without the phrase "in most recent news".
  2. Dating information does not belong in the heading for person(s) whose main notability derives from athletics.
  3. "miami" should be capitalized.
  4. You can't just say, "Sources say". This is an encyclopedia -- not a gossip rag. If you have a legitimate third party source that adheres to WP's standards for verifiability, neutrality, etc., then use a citation footnote.
  5. Public displays of affection are not part of an encyclopedia article, unless the article is about something explicitly sexual or romantic. Again, this is an encyclopedia; not a journal of every time a person had a PDA or potentially got serious romantically with another person.
  6. One doesn't "display public displays".....that doesn't make sense.Obamafan70 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

About the Heisman[edit]

The Heisman Trophy Trust did not actually strip Bush of his trophy on September 7, 2010. There was an article in Yahoo! Sports, which seems to be based on reliable inside sources, which states that the Trust has decided to take the award away. No actual announcement has been made. (By the way, when the announcement comes, please people, please, let's just say the award was taken away. Please don't say "it was announced that...")Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We all make a huge fuss over the Heisman, but the track record of this award has been spotty at best. There have been many Heisman winners, e.g,., Bush's teammate Matt Leinart, who flopped in the pros. One recent Heisman winner, Jason White, was not even drafted and never made an NFL roster. Bush himself is turning out to be a solid pro player, but by no means a superstar: he is best known for being the central figure in USC's recent scandal and for dating Kim Kardashian.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy Horrigan for your input. However, making a fuss about keeping an article sound need not entail a user thinks an award has a strong record -- it's a non-sequitor. My question to you -- why would one expect 900+ journalists to vote (who vote for an award) would produce a product where players succeed in the NFL? That's fallacious (argumentum ad populum)...And, I have no idea why that has become the central criticism of the Heisman when the entire award is based upon voting, unlike say College Football Performance Awards, which seems to have a clear methodology and purpose. But I digress -- some of us work hard more because we are devoted to the public's interest, not because we have an affinity to a particular subject. The award is probably going to be stripped of Bush shortly, and we need to make sure this article stays clear of vandalism, etc.Obamafan70 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
According to [2], the Heisman Trust has now declared that there is no recipient of the 2005 Heisman. From the sound of their releases, they were going to strip him of it, but accepted his forfeiture instead. The Heisman box at the bottom should be removed to reflect that he is no longer considered the 2005 recipient. Obviously, the text should remain, but the award is now un-awarded. (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar in intro[edit]

The last line should read the status of the many awards he won is uncertain. Another user made the appropriate correction, but it has been changed twice since. Perhaps this will help --

The status of the many awards he won is unclear." The subject of the sentence is "the status" is singular.

Many are probably confused by the prepositional phrase "of the many awards". It can be removed, and the sentence can stay in tact. For example, "The status is unclear." You still have the same subject (which is again singular).

Please do not replace is with are. It's getting tiresome to revert for good-faith editors.Obamafan70 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Adriannavar, 15 September 2010[edit]

[1]{{edit semi-protected}} "In a move unprecedented in the 75-year history of the Heisman Trophy, former University of Southern California star running back Reggie Bush forfeited college football’s most prestigious award on 9/15/2010. Bush, now a standout for the New Orleans Saints, released his statement through the NFL team. Bush admitted mistakes during his tenure as a collegian for the first time.

The move comes less than a week after Yahoo! Sports reported the Heisman trust was wrapping up its investigation into Bush’s alleged improprieties, and was expected to strip the trophy by the end of September. Trust representatives denied a decision had been made following that report. But only hours before a Tuesday night meeting, two sources close to the trust reiterated the award was expected to be stripped by the end of this month. The sources also reiterated the trophy will not be passed to second-place finisher Vince Young, and instead will be vacated."

source: Adriannavar (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Request denied. Reasoning: A) Violation of WP:COPY, B) Poor grammar, C) Mediocre source, D) Wrong date. Let's revisit when we get an actual announcement from the Trust itself. Thank you, Obamafan70 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not done: A copyright violation. (Also per Obamafan70's reasons). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New article picture[edit]

I understand the NFL has a very rigid copyright policy regarding photos, but is it possible to get a picture for this article from any time period other than his USC years? The university has completely disassociated itself from him as a result of NCAA sanctions, and I feel it's inappropriate for the default pic here to be of Reggie celebrating the 2004 National Championship, a game that USC was forced to vacate because of his actions. USC wants nothing to do with Reggie Bush, this page needs a new photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's copyright policy prevents a better image, not the NFL's. Only free images are allowed on Wikipedia, and this is the best we can find right now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


He signed with them. (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammar on 3rd to last paragraph about "Same Name"[edit]

The grammar in this paragraph is terrible. I also didn't see any citation for it. I didn't see that show so I'm not sure how to fix this paragraph. Can anyone fix the grammar and add a citation? AlmostBrazilian (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"In August 2011, Reggie starred in an episode of Same Name where he stayed with the Bush's family for four days. In this episode, Reggie helping to coach the Schlarman high school football team and by the end of his stay he present them with a refurnished changing room, as well as flight the Bush's family to Hawaii for a week and give Cindy her college applications."

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Reggie Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Reggie Bush/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Looks good so far but needs pictures and should probably be a bit longer before it can reach GA status. VegaDark 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 04:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Reggie Bush. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^