Talk:George W. Bush

Latest comment: 5 days ago by M.Bitton in topic Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024
Former featured article candidateGeorge W. Bush is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleGeorge W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 24, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
September 2, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
August 1, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 24, 2004.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Margie Schoedinger

edit

there is no mention of the woman who accused bush of rape in october of 2000. should this be mentioned or are there claims too dubious to have here? NotQualified (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Michelle, or is the pronoun "him"?

edit

Uh? "Bush famously passed mints to Obama during the McCain funeral in September 2018 and gave them to her again during the funeral of his father in December 2018." ???? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The paragraph is about Bush's relationship with Michelle Obama, the "Obama" and the "her" in the sentence. The "him" in the sentence refers to Bush's father. The wording is a direct copy from the source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page protection

edit

This page is vandalised a lot. Can someone enable page protection? TheTechyOne (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

edit

The information pertaining to former president bushs spending increases state that his spending increased by 60% is inaccurate. His spending increase was 66.741196198994% if the information was going to be rounded to the nearest 10 then it should have rounded up however it would be more accurate to round the increase percentage to 65%. Seeing that large of a discrepancy in the math makes me feel like other information pertaining to the former president could also be misleading or inaccurate or possibly even intentionally misleading so I feel that it would be in Wikipedias and its users best interest to be as accurate as possible. No source needed as math is easily fact checked. 162.205.60.249 (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply