Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Nobel Prize/ Negative Campaign

I think it is worth mentioning that Bush was in the running for the Nobel Prize in 2002? I'm not sure what the wiki policy for that is.

Also the statements claiming that the 2000 was a "smear campaign" seem very biased and at least do not belong on the main page of the man. Maybe on the articles for his election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.40.77 (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel prize nomination is in the archive. Short of it is that anyone can be nominated for any reason and Bush's nomination was a protest by a random French guy. When members of the Nobel committee were asked about it, one is on record stating that he was never a serious contender, and provides the reasons for this. We could mention the nomination, but given that the reason for him not winning were all the wars he started and that he never stood a chance to win. Given BLP policies, its doubtful that the information jumps the bar so to speak.

The 2000 Primary has sourced statements and, quite frankly, are less than what we had before. The South Carolina primary is, 9 years later, considered a textbook smear campaign and was considered by most media outlets to be one of the worst smear campaigns on record, anything I've read that I would consider at WP:RS mentions the significant number of negative ads at minimum. I was watching a meet the press style debate and it was brought up as the worst not 3 months ago. SNL made fun of it in the 2008 Presidential elections as well. The short of it is that Bush went into SC and was projected to lose, and projected to lose badly. Further his strategists thought that if he lost SC then he was going to lose the nomination. Then a push poll comes out that asked voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" At that point, McCain's numbers tanked and Bush won though there was also a tremendous amount of negative television ads going on at the same time about both candidates. Enough WP:RS point to the push poll as the turning point that its impractical to disregard it because that question was a key factor in Bush winning the nomination, so if you want to include a more detailed look at Bush's most significant primary be my guest. We could try, "Bush came into the 2000 South Carolina primary trailing in the polls, however Bush won the South Carolina primary which made headlines nationally for negative advertising and a Push Poll question that would affect his opponent for the rest of the campaign." Then link it over to the 2000 Republican primaries which spends a good deal of time discussing the Push Poll that effectively ended McCain's chances. RTRimmel (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar errors

This page is riddled with grammar errors. It is not right to keep it locked without fixing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.92.194 (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a few examples. SMP0328. (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the ANON meant that the page is "...riddled with grammatical errors." QueenofBattle (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate the areas of the article and we will correct the grammar. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Profession since handover

On principle, is it all right to continue to call former statesmen having served the maximum term senators or even politicians or is it instantly discarded now that he cannot serve as president again? I am just asking because I am trying to find a way to best introduce the article using the current status as opposed to "former leader". Evlekis (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they're going with "political figure".--Louiedog (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

People talk about Bill Clinton as "President Clinton" all the time, even in present contexts ; it's not at all absurd to say "The current Secretary of State is married to President Clinton". Is this what you mean? Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Or is your point that he's not in politics anymore, so we shouldn't call him a politician? Simply being a former president doesn't disqualify you from seeking some other office; one even served as a U.S. Representative after the presidency. Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Call him George then. Or "Former President" like they do at the Clinton page. I think they are trying to go with "political figure" for his books and public speaking, Bush was appearntly a good Governer however a few people, here and there, consider his Presidency somewhat lackluster. We should just call him by his highest Title, a toss up between President and, of course, "head cheerleader" but in keeping with MOS we should probably go President. 74.219.88.102 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Former Presidents are always still referred to as "President" within political circles. At mass formal gathering for instance a memorial in which multiple former Commanders in Cheif are present, you will hear them referring to each other as "President Clinton", "President Bush" and the like. It makes sense that this is how they should be referred to in this text. 80.254.146.84 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is mine if anyone wants to respond - sorry, I forgot to sign in before posting. Duster (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing Parts (Major)

Somebody needs to add his 2009 Maritime Sanctuaries, which were roughly twice as large as the 2006 dedications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellhurst (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible conclusion to his public view section

Would it be too biased to conclude that section with George Bush's presidnency still being percieved in the eyes of many in America and abroad as the biggest failure in American history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.233.75 (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are these "many"? And it's been less than a year, so what does "still" mean? If significant opinion to this effect can be cited 5 or 10 years from now, it may be worth putting it in. -- Zsero (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes.131.247.83.135 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of bias. It's a matter of appropriateness under wikipedia policy. If you're saying it without a source, that's original research; if you're writing a conclusion not explicitly mentioned in a source but based on a whole bunch of sources, that's synthesis.--Louiedog (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to see reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion about how low his approval rating was when he left office, as well as Americans' perception of how well the wars that were started under him were going. Likewise, the perception of him abroad is also covered well. In my opinion, that is sufficient, and stronger conclusions should be reserved for future historians to make.

To simply say that the general concesus is that he was a horrible president because of lot of sources say he was is meaningless, as there are probably also plenty of sources that say he was a great president. Finally, and even though I am not extrordinarily familiar with Wiki policy, such a statement does sound like judgement that is meant to be taken objectively, especially with the weasely "many" substituted for any named group of people. Isn't it fair to say that to judge a president either glowingly or harshly when we are so close in history to that president's tenure in office is going to be inherently unobjective? To report contemporary professional and public opinion of a president and his policies is one thing, but to make such strong judgements of a president just a year after he left office cannot possibly be objective.--Scyldscefing (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there was no successful terrorist attacks on America after the 9/11 attacks for the balance of George Bush's presidency should be included in the "War on Terror" section of this biography. This is a pertinent fact to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedupside (talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted above that would be WP:OR, further there's no saying that wouldn't have been the case anyhow. An attack of that magnitude is hopefully a once in a lifetime situation. NJA (t/c) 07:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very critical of Bush. It sounds more like CNN than a biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.134.48 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to give examples, or suggest changes. Just saying something isn't right isn't much to work with. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Duh, the libs are running the show.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...is a general accusation indistinguishable in origin from hostile media effect. Please select the portions you believe violate WP:NPOV for discussion.--Louiedog (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

......I believe this is a fairly positive view of George W Bush as one of his distinguishing historical characteristics is he is the first person ever to be elected president of the United States after having been convicted of DUI, a misdemeanor when he was found guilty but during his presidency considered a felony everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeinlondon (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this article a first offence DUI in the US is not considered a felony today. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was the socialist O's article, then there wouldnt be anything negative in it.--Palin12 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin2012, welcome to wikipedia. I'm sorry for your confusion. This is the talkspace for discussion of the George W. Bush article. The talkspace for discussing the Obama article can be found here.--Louiedog (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Its called a comparison, get it, got it, did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palin12 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor, I'm sorry again for the confusion. This is not the purpose of talk pages in wikipedia. The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Happy editing!--Louiedog (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda piece.

This is panegyric of Bush (who would have thought it possible!). The whole article needs to be replaced with another. It should address the "controversies" associated with the Bush administration: the social effects of his policies on the economy, health care, education, taxation and social security "reform", the lead up to the Iraq war, his record as Governor of Texas, in which capacity he presided over more tham 150 executions, and many more. Why not ask David North to write it? Arthurjermyn (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, but talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of nickname?

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He is and was commonly referred to as "Dubya" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.123.231 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) It's already mentioned in the "see also" section. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Recession comment incorrect.

I believe that the statement "In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession." is incorrect. The definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth . This did not happen until Q3/Q4 of 2008. Besides being factually incorrect, the statement is illogical as well. By definition, the longest a "recession" can be is 5 quarters. 6 quarters of negative GDP growth is no longer a recession, it is a depression. This definition actually is in conflict with Wikipedia's definition which is eight quarters , but most college economics courses teach six. (I will address the editing of that page at another time.) In the years 1973/74 the US had 5 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Q3 and Q4 for 2008 where negative growth GDP quarters, as where Q1 and Q2 of 2009. Q3 of 2009 showed a positive GDP growth rate which means we had 4 quarters of negative growth in '08/'09 as opposed to 5 in '73/'74. In 1980-83 the US saw 6 consecutive quarters of negative GDP which constituted a depression.

Contrary to popular myth, a recession is not officially defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. NBER states - "A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. " In the same token Depression is not defined as 6 or 8 quarters of negative growth. Depression was the just the old name for recession (you can see the economic texts of 19th century mentioning it after every economic crisis) and during great depression a few economists and psychologists thought recession would be a better terminology as it is less depressing psychologically. -- User:BalajiViswanathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.210.245 (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

74.115.64.254 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Dubya 12/18/2009

The WP:RS backs up this viewpoint. Its not our job to do WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, we have to report on what the sources indicate and they overwhelmingly call it the longest post ww2 recession as such, so do we. Do you have any credible sources that say otherwise? If so, we could at least pull it out of the lede, but we'd need to mention the recession on some level in the lede given its severity. RTRimmel (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Removal of Text From This Page

Today I reverted an edit which removed text from this page using the logic that it was a personal attack. While I agree that the deleted text was a clear personal attack I do not agree with its removal as it sets a dangerous precedent for other editors to begin editing and removing talk page text. I feel it is better to leave it and just move on. If that kind of posting persists than we can take steps to report this poor conduct which violates Wiki policy WP:NPA by contacting an Admin. Generally Wiki discourages editing other editors comments. See WP:TALK and WP:TALKO. It also says that the removal of personal attacks, while permitted, is "controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable". I prefer to leave the text and have a record of an editors misbehavior so we can pursue disciplinary action against the editor if the attacks continue. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As the subject of the personal attacks not only here but on at least one other talk page, I generally agree with KBob. I might suggest that clear personal attacks be stricken through, but not deleted. Foolish, falsely brave ANON editors hiding behind their presumed anonymity will be shown for what they are by letting their inane comments stand on their own. If another editor has a problem with me, here is my talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes a 'strike through' the offensive text is a good compromise and its lets people know that uncivil remarks are not acceptable, while maintaining the text if needed for future reference.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. While I understand that "wikipedia is not censored" isn't actually what the policy says, I see no reason why we should remove text simply because it breaks a rule. It should only be removed when its presence constitutes an ongoing offense (privacy violations, criminal speech, et cet). We're big boys and girls and we don't need to put our hands over our eyes to protect us from someone calling us a poo poo head. Sanction the name callers and move on. Striking the text is fine, but removal of the comment seems unnecessary censorship.--Δζ (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

While generally I agree, I just want to make clear that it is completely justifiable to remove statements that are purely personal attacks. They should be removed, and also kept, with discretion. But there is no "right" to free speech here; this is a discussion page for talking about improving the article, not an open message board. Everyone is well warned not to make personal attacks, so there is no excuse. Swarm^Talk 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Miserable failure redirect

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that it is highly rude that "Miserable Failure" Redirects to Bush. Firstly, that he is a failure is an opinion, not a fact (An Opinion I don't agree with that). Secondly, when typing that, I was expecting to get to the Google bomb page (Read it to get what I mean). In short, the Miserable failure should re-direct there instead.24.29.50.195 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Miserable failure, in fact, redirects to Google bomb. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture at the top

Shouldn't the picture at the top be his official Presidential Portrait, as that is probably the last official portrait he will have?

Articles on several other Presidents have a picture embedded in the article labeled as "official portrait" which is different from the photo at the top of the page. Based on that, I'd say it is not necessary to use the official portrait at the top of this article. LarryJeff (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Longest post WW2 recession?

"In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession" is poorly sourced. The actual quote, which was in itself an opinion piece from 1 economist, states: "The current economic downturn is shaping to be one of the worst in terms of duration, job less and contraction in economic activity in the post-war period," Kwan said. One of the worst is not THE worst. The assertion should either be proven or redacted. Sdiver68 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The source is pretty old too... we should be able to find another 10-15 that support the position. I'll find a few later today, but remember we can't have too many or we get into issues with good article status. RTRimmel (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a later, more broad-based source. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

If the Article is Going To Spend So Much Time Talking About Presidential Approval Ratings, It Should Also Reference Harry Truman

If the Article is Going To Spend So Much Time Talking About Presidential Approval Ratings, It Should Also Reference Harry Truman, who left office with record-low approval ratings, but who years later regained popularity and appreciation for his role as President.

Also low approval ratings for an American President overseas is less significant than the article makes it out to be. Many American Presidents had very low approval ratings in other countries, who by the way don't rank Americans in general very high either.

69.171.160.239 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this line is that historians thought Harry was doing a bang up job while in office, even if he was really unpopular at the time, whereas historians thought Bush not doing such a bang up job while in office, and was really unpopular at the time. So the two are really an apples and oranges comparison and won't really help much. And how would we even word it, "Some have compared Bush to Truman as an example of a highly unpopular president who's acomplishments will show long after they left office, though historians in general considered Truman's presidency a success even before he left office while most historians rated Bush's presidency a failure prior to his departure". As for his international disapproval, we have sources for them so why not? Bush was rated unusually low in popularity for an american persident according to the sources so we can just leave it at that. RTRimmel (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Historians don't have a consensus opinion on much of anything. If you find one historian implying Truman is an example of a great President, you can easily find five others suggesting he displayed hot-headedness in critical situations and oversimplified the United States' contemporary relationship with the USSR. The point is, historians may utilize more technical arguments when discussing history, but they disagree just as much as everybody else (if not more). --Xaliqen (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Current Haiti Activity

Why is there the mention of this Under Bill Clinton and not George W Bush?

"In the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Clinton teamed with George W. Bush to form the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund."NYC2LA (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the last paragraph under Post-Presidency LarryJeff (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also in the paragraph under Clinton's Post-Presidency. Why not treat it the same under George W Bush?NYC2LA (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what is wrong. It is already in both articles. LarryJeff (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an appearance of bias in that it is mentioned under Clinton at the top of the article (as well as further on) but is only mentioned at the end of the article on Bush. Both articles should be consistent.NYC2LA (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're imagining bias. Just because it's at a different place in both articles, it doesn't change the neutrality. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's My Bush

There should be a mention of the short-lived comedy That's My Bush, in which George W. Bush was a main character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.17.84 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

vandalism notification

by Pesf user, some minutes ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joxemai (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

redirection notification

Does anybody know why the word "Defraud" directs the wikipedia search engine to this particular page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.138.7 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some hateful moonbat thought it would be funny. Redirected to Fraud. Thank you for the notification. 67.186.112.214 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

What if we changed the side box at the top to link to the oil company he worked with as well as his owned baseball team under the occupation section instead of just to the petroleum and baseball articles? 150.176.164.16 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me LarryJeff (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys! Read the first few lines of the introduction paragraph and it say that after W:s reelection he experienced increasing criticism "from conservatives". I don't doubt that that's correct in a narrow sense, and "notable" as well. But it intuitively it seems to put a bit of undue weight (in the general sense) on the reaction of conservatives? Over his second term I'm pretty sure he lost a lot of poll support from self-described "moderates" as well? RandySpears (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

President Bush trip to Albania

A recent edit removed the descriptor of Albania as a largely Muslim nation. I checked the source that the section links to and the descriptor is there:

Albania Key Facts-Predominantly Muslim nation of 3.2m in western Balkans

Also, I searched through the archives to find the consensus(1,2) about this section of the Bush article. I do note there is some controversy on the exact religious percentages of the Nation, since they were a Stalinist regime for many years and religion was outlawed. Although the CIA World Factbook and the United States Department of State both list the percentage as 70%, a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center put the figure at nearly 80%. So the source describing the nation as a 'predominantly Muslim nation' is a sufficient descriptor, no matter which source you use. It also adds to the section describing the jubilant reaction of the country at the visit. DD2K (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that they entire sentence is too much for a BLP. Most likely suited for the article about his presidency. One trip is not all that notable in my opinion. Either way its not likely to have an effect on the readers any way. Like Obama, they either hate or they love him.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

" Like Obama, they either hate or they love him"- While I think that is true with passionate politicos, there are a great many that are ambivalent to the persons, even if they agree/disagree with the policies. Most rational people can agree or disagree with a certain politician's view points or policies, but still realize the said politician believes their policies are what is best for the Nation they govern/legislate for. In any case, you are probably right about the WP:BLP indication, but there is already so much inserted here, that particular section seeks to add some balance to the rest of the portion of the article. DD2K (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this article; in context of its section, the Albania paragraph at least adds a semblance of NPOV. But reading it, I can't help thinking this and the rest of the section – most likely much of the article – need some update for currency, at least of verbs used (e.g. most occurrences of "has been" should now be "was") and possibly for facts (does Albania still have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is the government currently highly supportive of American foreign policy and perhaps most questionable, does a huge image of Bush now hang in the middle of the capital city of Tirana flanked by Albanian and American flags?) Possibly issues like these could affect the credibility of the article slightly more than an offhand comment about the country's majority religion. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, some of the current descriptors could be replaced, but the event happened and adds more balance to the current article. I would think that if someone wants to research the current situation and replace some words(like is to was, or the like), it could be done without much talk page discussion. But the gist of the section is well documented by three reliable sources-NPR, BBC and The NYT. I changed the last link because the CNN link was dead. DD2K (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

The mention of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the article should be replaced with "interrogation techniques". "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a neologism coined by the Bush administration and more neutral terms should be favored. 74.107.142.232 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

George W. Bush - Incorrect Portrait Attribution

Please note that the portrait of George W. Bush appearing to the right just below the "Presidency" header is not the official White House portrait of the President. It was commissioned by the Union League Club of Philadelphia and hangs in the Club, not in the White House. See link http://blog.al.com/mhuebner/2008/12/birmingham_artist_mark_carder.html for verification. Robander (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead photo suggestion

I think the lead photo ought to be the earlier presidential photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GeorgeWBush.jpg) as the photos of other recent presidents are from near the beginning of their administrations. The current photo, indicative of Bush's latter looks, looks especially weird when seen in reference to the 2000 election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.34.34 (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubya

Hi! A lot of people refer to G. W. Bush as "Dubya". Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.31.185.252 (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds similar the phonetic pronunciation of his middle initial, 'W'.

W

'Doubleu'

'Dubya' 195.194.150.129 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's how he pronounces the letter "W" when referring to his name. It's not phonetic, it has more to do with the southern drawl he speaks with. Wikipediarules2221 03:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Google bomb

I know that it was a bit spiteful, but the google bombing of his name to miserable failure should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojokabobo (talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 March 2010

This might be appropriate with reliable sources showing the significance of it on a google bombing article but I do not believe it is something that aids in the understanding of George W. Bush. This isn't specifically about his actions, it is about the actions of other people and how they feel about him. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And just to close this out, it is already in the article Google bomb ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do believe it would fit quite fine in the section "Public Image and Approval". The Google bomb and its mention are especially important because, in all truth, it was the first truly widescale and notorious google bomb of them all, and represents a significant shift in public image and approval. The fact that it is nowhere in that section is mind-boggling. Mojokabobo (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Mojokabobo

It's a Google incident, not a GWB incident. A bunch of idiots getting their jollies by painting internet graffiti represents the actions of a bunch of idiots, not a shift in public opinion. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly call the single most effective (and i would say, still effective... considering that to date a google search of miserable failure still references the google bomb of GWB in the first top 4 hits) google bomb to date is nothing more than a bunch of idiots getting their jollies off (Source: (forgive me, i'm wiki syntax illiterate) http://google.about.com/od/socialtoolsfromgoogle/a/googlebombatcl.htm). I could just as easily resort to using blatant and ignorant epithets to dismiss your argument, but that would not be civil. Mojokabobo (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Mojokabobo

Whether it's a "bunch of idiots" or dozens of internet activists, it doesn't belong in the George W. Bush article. It's not nuetral and does not pass the WP:Undue test to be considered. It's in the Google Bomb article. Definitely not here though. DD2K (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I suppose I can accept the answer about the not being able to pass the WP:Undue test (i had not read that bit of the rules). I will leave this up for a while and after a few days when those who were commenting have seen what was said, i'll take my suggestion out. Mojokabobo (talk)Mojokabobo —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

You shouldn't remove these comments in a few days. It should stay as a record of this conversation so that in the future if the question comes up again people can see what the consensus is. The conversation will be archived in due course. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Valid point GB fan. If anyone can find some sort of evidence/citations/study on the popular public opinion relating to the google bomb and GWB, then perhaps this discussion could be further considered for admission. Mojokabobo (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It has no place in the public view. Google denied that they had done it personally. This critism in only speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.155.132 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Campaign contributions:

I am a strong believer in the concept of “follow the money” Is there a way we can add the top contributors to the campaigns? Thank you. --OxAO (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional 1st Term Economic Highlights

It should be noted that the economic climate inherited by this presidential term includes the weakened economy caused by the "dotcom bust" of March 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#The_bubble_bursts). Other economic events that played a large role in the beginning of this administration's policy includes the Enron Scandel in Oct 2001(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal) which also brought down one of the Big Five accounting firms, Arthur Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States), as well as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack of the Twin Towers in New York city. These events caused great economic challenges for the early stages of the George W. Bush presidential administration. Ltam1162 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

9-11 was the big one. Enron did not cause much change in the U.S. economy. Maybe Arthur Anderson but not the US. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

George W. Bush official website

The website for the George W. Bush Presidential Center (GWB's personal website) http://www.georgewbushlibrary.com, should be listed in addition to the White House website on GWB's page. After 1/20/09, it should just list the Presidential Center's site.

That is not his personal website. That is the website for the center. Slight difference. The same is that the White House is not Obama's personal website. It is his official website. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote in Presidential Elections

I would note that while the split of the popular vote is quoted for the 2004 election where Bush defeated Kerry, "...garnering 50.7% of the popular vote to his opponent's 48.3%," the same statistic for the 2000 election is noticeably absent. The specific use of a detailed percentage for 2004 suggests the author attaches great significance to who receives the majority of the popular vote, and yet displays an out-of-place bias in an otherwise simple article by omitting the data where Bush lost the popular vote. To correct the article and make the two passages parallel, the text should read in words or effect as follows: "In 2004 George W. Bush defeated his opponent Al Gore for the Presidency by receiving a majority of the votes cast in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote between them with 50.3% cast for Al Gore and 49.7% cast for President Bush." In the alternative, please delete the second reference with respect to the Bush v. Kerry election.--Scottie1492 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Despite" is an opinion and a value judgement that the electoral college is bad. The facts are that Bush defeated Gore by receiving x number of electoral votes...in that election, Bush received x % of votes. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are the wrong percentages, and I'm not sure "infoplease" is a reliable source. In any case, I removed the reference from the beginning of the article, and replaced the reference. The specifics of the elections are discussed in more detail in the appropriate sections of the article, as well as having their own articles(the 2000 and 2004 presidential election articles). DD2K (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Poll sez: Bush = Obama

An April 2010 poll by Democratic leaning Public Policy Polling found that the number of Americans who would rather have Bush as the current President over Obama was in a statistical tie with the number opposed, 46% to 48% respectively.[351]

Any objections to including this? Another editor tweaked the wording just a bit after I first wrote the sentence (so that the poll group is know called "Democratic leaning"), and I have no objections to that change. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly poll. How many people would rather have LBJ than Eisenhower? Or Woodrow Wilson rather than Gerald Ford? The poll is silly. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain signifigance. Also see WP:WEIGHT. Reviewing the Polling organization, and the lack of meaningful data, I really fail to see why this is included. Looking through the numbers, we can tell that the poll had more republican respondants than any other grouping and given Public Policy Polling's tactics of using statements like "Is Obama the Anti-Christ" as their phone questions I'm really less inclined to use them. When ARG came out with a poll giving Bush the lowest approval rating ever it didn't get its own sentence let alone its own section. I'm going to remove it. If you wish to have it re added please explain why this one poll done when Bush was out of office is signifigant in the light of his entire life? And if it is, we have dozens of other polls that could be considered signifigant that were given far less coverage? This poll may have signifigance elsewhere, Presidency of Barack Obama or such, but in a BLP of Bush, given that nothing has yet come of the poll result, it does not belong here. RTRimmel (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This being said, if you can find several polls that support the same notion and reliable sources that grant some sort of signifigance to the results, I'm fine with readding it. As it is, the results of this poll don't have an impact on anyone and therefor are inappropriate to add from WP:BLP. RTRimmel (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Explain signifigance. Good point. Apparently, a bunch of journalists have discussed that particular poll. Added with that information that you requested. Also, some context with a previous poll (also with journalist notification) added. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So your backup for this trivial event is a bunch of opinion pieces? Discussed is strething a bit here too... most of the pieces seem to be "hey here is a poll" rather than a detailed discussion of the topic. Further, the focus of these pieces seem to be on President Obama rather than Bush. Finally this is still a WP:UNDUE issue, the poll has absolutly no impact on Bush's status or importance. Run the 10 year test on this, do you think that anyone will care about this one poll, or two polls, in 10 years? In one? In six months? Doubtful, at best. Its simply a WP:BLP violation because its really just unimportant trivia. I'll leave it for others to discuss this well sourced but utterly inconcequential add. RTRimmel (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In the list of all the things you could write about George W., mentioning a favorability comparison to another President at one particular point in time seems rather obscure.--Louiedog (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Poll has bad sample.

• Would you rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush as President right now? If Barack Obama, press 1. If George W. Bush, press 2. If you’re not sure, press 3.
  • Obama............................................................ 48%
  • Bush ............................................................... 46%
  • Not Sure.......................................................... 6%

• Who did you vote for President last year? If John McCain, press 1. If Barack Obama, press 2. If someone else or you don’t remember, press 3.
  • McCain............................................................ 45%
  • Obama............................................................ 48%
  • Someone else/don't remember ....................... 7%

• Q8 Would you describe yourself as a liberal, moderate, or conservative? If liberal, press 1. If moderate, press 2. If conservative, press 3.
  • Liberal ............................................................. 21%
  • Moderate......................................................... 37%
  • Conservative................................................... 42%

Why these numbers are significant: We have hard numbers Barack won the presidency 53% to 46%, the sample group here is off by over 5% points as a base. The liberal vs moderate vs conservative numbers are also off against pretty much every other polling group I've seen. A detailed examination of the numbers reveal some rather deep flaws that really make me concerned of giving this poll more than a single sentence. My opinion, based on a solid read of the thing, is that they have a bad sample group which is not uncommon in polling and we would need multiple polls preferably from multiple sources to back this one up. All of the sources Granny provided were from editorial columns and none provided any real significance to the poll. If you must add it back in, you get one sentence with a good WP:RS, none of your prior sources qualified, but that bloated paragraph was WP:UNDUE in the extreme. Five or ten sources that say there is a poll does not mean that the poll is significant. RTRimmel (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the poll be included? I think the last version(that was removed) was sloppily written and should be done in a more fluent manner, but the poll should be mentioned in this article, and the Public image of George W. Bush article. The old version also jumbled up different polls with commentaries from outlets addressing a completely different poll. So the end of the section should either be left out entirely or written by someone who has a better grasp of the content. Polls change and there is no reason to include day-to-day polling in the main articles of WP:BLPs, but significant(benchmark) polls should be included periodically. For the other polls, the public image article should suffice. DD2K (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this poll should be considered significant or a benchmark. The results indicate that Republicans prefer Bush to Obama, and Democrats prefer Obama to Bush. Not exactly "stop the presses" news. Independents favoring Obama over Bush 49–37% may be down a bit from the election, but a 12 point margin is still fairly conclusive. What's the real significance here? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally I don't know if it is or not. But I would say it relates to the rock-bottom numbers that Bush had during his latter years as President as significant. I don't think it's a benchmark in terms of R's and D's preferring R's or D's to be in charge, but it does(imo) show a significant improvement of the public perception of Bush as President. In relation to his very low approval ratings. Of course I don't know if the results are related to people viewing Bush in a more favorable manner, or Obama in a less favorable manner, but that's what linking to a reliable source that comments on the poll should be for. Perhaps a short mention of the poll that coincides with his low approval ratings would be agreeable. In any case, like you(and the other editor above) pointed out, there is no real shift here as far as partisans are concerned. Obama(D) still receives the vast majority of D support and a significant lead in independent support, while Bush takes the vast majority of R support, with a bump in independent support. Even if the polling is skewed because of who answered or was polled, it's still a bump in numbers for Bush. DD2K (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually its neither. Presidents who are out of office get a bump in popularity. Its just that simple. Bush gets the bump, like Clinton got the bump, like Bush got the bump, like Reagan got the bump, like Carter got the bump. When you remove the ability of a person to make bad choices and constantly drum on their successes they get more popular. So there isn't anything significant about this poll, it happened to every president since we've done polling (including Nixon and Truman). This would be significant if it allowed Bush to accomplish something, so the question for its addition here is "What does this poll do to allow Bush to achieve his goals?" Then "What reliable sources back up my claim." If Fox News picks up the poll and gets some experts on that say that this poll has caused Bush's stocks to rise to a degree where his influence has significantly expanded then it is important. As no major news outlets have picked up this poll and explained to us its importance, rather they just explained that the poll occurred, then we can table it for now and come back to it in a few months when the results and impact of this new mindset are important. From experience, its usually best to sit on a new poll for a month or so to see how important it actually is. We have time. RTRimmel (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If the poll is called a Democratic leaning poll, the phrasing is potentially biased. There are Republican polls asking things like "Do you agree with Obama's destructive economic policies?". Democratic polls could ask things like "Do you agree with Bush's flushing the Constitution down the toilet?" Those kind of polls are designed to make people donate money because they become angry when reading the question. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Call me picky but..

I literally just made my account so bear with me.

Figured I'd start with something small: The second paragraph in the 'Marriage and Family' section concerning his drug & alcohol use should be moved to 'Childhood to Mid-life' The paragraph starts: "Prior to his marriage" and it just seems out of place. --Mdw1129 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just created Memoir Article

I just created Decision Points GWB's memoir, any help there would be great! Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't edit, but (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769139/ns/today-today_books/) says that it comes out on November 9. Also, it is not going to be a traditional memoir. Once I can edit, I'll help out

Decision Points

Articles are already being written that suggest Bush's approval might increase after his book is released. [[1]] for example. This is/will be important but remembering the 10 year test, conjecture on the book is probably not going to be the most productive use of anyone's time. The book is being released on November 9th, 2010 (currently and subject to change). I, for one, am highly curious as to how Bush justified his actions to himself. RTRimmel (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bush's approval is worthless information now that he is retired. Why not report LBJ's approval ratings now? Or William McKinley's approval rating last month? The Sandwich costs $3 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

Added the fact that he is now on Facebook, source is in the article. --Wintonian (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't put the number of followers yet. The article says 20,000 but it's now well over 50,000, and growing by the second.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did think about that which is why I phrased it as” ...over 20,000”, as well as that being the figure and phrasing in the citation. When another citation is found and/ or when the figure settles down it can be updated unless other people disagree of course. --Wintonian (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You should remove any figure at this point. "Over X" is not accurate when X is not approximate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously own my own again - so removed. --Wintonian (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So what he's on Facebook? The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Where is the "Pending changes" that BBC is saying this article has? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.216.170 (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) BBC article says 11PM GMT which would be 5PM CT or 6PMET USA I assume this is when it happens Thejohansenfamily (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen many editors being granted reviewer rights over the last few days. This is the message they find:

"You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here."

Don't ask me what is to be gained. †TE†Talk 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• So the BBC is not a reliable source. Now we know. --87.79.173.150 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? It outlines what is going to happen. The changes are supposed to be implemented 11:00pm GMT, which is around 6:00pm/7:00pm Eastern time. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! pm, not am. BBC is a reliable source after all. On a related note: There's a reason why many use the 24-hour clock. --87.79.173.150 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes is being added to articles slowly, because there are concerns it will either slow down or crash the site. To see which articles will have pending changes added soon, see Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Queue. There is currently a discussion about if this article should have pending changes turned on now.--Banana (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Perceived intellectual capacity

The word "perceived" is being added to the phrase "His (perceived) intellectual capacity is being satirized ...". This is, seen from one side, redundant, since intellectual capacity is always a perceived feature but assuming a divergence between "perceived intellectual capacity" and "(actual) intellectual capacity", (semantically) it is his (actual) intellectual capacity the one that is being satirized (irregardless of it being high, low, average...). Einstein intellectual capacity has also been satirized, sometimes as high, sometimes as being low. Satirized=(aprox)ridicule. You don't say, for example, instead of "The play ridicules you", "The play ridicules the image we have of you", for a play making fun of you. Abisharan (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Comedians mock his intelligence, not the perception of his intelligence. Whether he's actually intelligent is not the issue. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the both of you. It is his intellectual capacity that is being satirized, period. "Perceived" is redundant. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd go one step further and argue that "perceived" implies that the (public) perception of Bush's intelligence is being satirized. So, the way I see it it's not just redundant but it actually falsifies the assertion. --87.79.172.226 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, perception is inherent. When watching MSNBC last night, I would never call their critique of Obama's leadership as "perceived." It is what it is. Many folks mock, ridicule and criticize from their perception, no qualifier necessary. †TE†Talk 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

c.f. "I mocked Howard Stern's small penis" with "I mocked Howard Stern's claimed small penis". One of these makes the explicit statement that his penis is small in reality and that I'm making fun of its smallness, the other says that it's an ongoing joke with any level of truth value.--Louiedog (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, completely right. But in the article it never says "Bush's small intellectual capacity has been satirized...". I think people making that change are mistakenly assuming something like that. Abisharan (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How it's read is what it says. The onus is on us to write in a way that is minimally likely to be read wrong.--Louiedog (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, and "Bush's perceived intellectual capacity has been satirized..." is semantically wrong and therefore very likely to be read wrong. For the moment the way it is is at least precise and could only be read wrong in the presence of pre-assumptions. Other ideas are always welcomed. Abisharan (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to debate over adding "perceived" or not as a description, but shouldn't the fact that Bush attended and graduated from Yale and Harvard be added to the section? Dave Dial (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• That section is about "Public image and perception", there is a section about "Education". Neutrality requires that each section exposes the fact as objectively as possible. "Public image" can not present him as being in fact an idiot or as being in fact smart, only as being usually portrayed as an idiot, as that is what his public image turned out to be represented by others. In the same why the section "Education" should only state the kind and maybe the quality of the education he received, it can not conclude from it if he is smart or not. It is the task of the reader to conclude whatever he/she prefers. If there were a reliable source qualifying bush's intellectual capacity in some way then maybe it could be considered for addition in the article, but if the qualification were not good probably it would be included for ethical reasons. For the same reason the article can not suggest either that because he some education in certain universities then public image is wrong and doesn't correspond to reality (definitely it can not say that it does). It is the reader's duty to decide. Abisharan (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection status

I've seen alot of changes regarding this article's protection status. With all of those changes, I've been left confused as to what is this article's current protection status. So tell me: What is the current protection status of this article? SMP0328. (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users may edit it. It is on the list of potential candidates for WP:Pending changes articles, and will probably be changed to this form of protection shortly. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolute majority

In 2004 George Bush won a Simple majority not an Absolute majority. No president ever won an absolute majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.63.151 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what counts as the operative group. If it's American citizens or all registered voters, then you're right. If it's those who voted for President, then Bush received an absolute majority. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An absolute majority is defined by reference to all eligible voters ("including those absent and those present but not voting"). That's the difference between an absolute majority and a simple majority, and that's why those distinct qualified terms exist at all.124.149.178.247 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Absolute majority" doesn't make sense in this context because it is not being set against some smaller class of people. There is no relevant subset of "the popular vote" that otherwise makes decisions. I've changed the text to say "outright majority" as the comparison is to elections where the presidency was gained with a plurality (or less). -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An "absolute majority" is a majority of all eligible voters, and a "simple majority" is a majority of all eligible voters who voted.124.149.178.247 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence vs Intellectual capacity

In the section "Public image..." it was changed "Bush's intellectual capacity..." to "Bush's intelligence...". Intelligence could be intelligence services and notice that since in that paragraph there are no examples of the satires it is not clear which is the case. Therefore "intelligence" alone is not a good choice. I linked it to the meaning of intelligence being referred to. I don't mind this option but what was the problem with intellectual capacity? Why was it changed to a term that requires a link or more explanation in order for not being ambiguous? Abisharan (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes Protection

I have applied WP:PCP on this article because this article exists in the pool, and there was no other article that exists in the queue. Please leave comments here if there is any objection to this WP:PCP. 山本一郎 (会話) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular vote vs Gore

"In a close and controversial election, Bush was elected President in 2000 as the Republican candidate, defeating then-Vice President Al Gore in the Electoral College.[5]"

It might be worth mentioning that he did not beat Gore in the popular vote (absolute count). 195.241.69.171 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the overall US-wide popular vote means absolutely nothing why should it be mentioned? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a very notable feature of the election that Bush was the first candidate in decades to become president after losing the popular vote. It prompted calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Of course it should be mentioned. JamesMLane t c 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So it was a notable feature of the election, this is not the election page. This is George W. Bush's biography. Is it a notable part of his life? I don not think it is notable enough that it needs to be inserted here. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It gets alot of play from historians. Its one of those tidbits that they all love and will appear in virtually any history book about the 2000 election so we might as well include it, though much past a sentence is overkill. RTRimmel (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is neither a history book nor about the 2000 election. The tidbit appears in the article already; there's no need to change the current phrasing in the lead. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In regard to James Lame comment John quicny Adams was the first President elected while losing the popular vote, the second was Rutherford HayesUnicorn76 (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

George W. Bush was not elected President in 2000, contrary to this article's assertions; nobody was elected President. The Supreme Court of the United States declared George W. Bush President, and called off the count of the vote. Commentary on either the popular or the electoral vote is moot. Nobody was elected because the counting was called off. The courts decided the Presidency in this election. This is a matter of public record. Maidix (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats a very nice POV opinion. Do you have a source for this WP:BLP statement?--Jojhutton (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet Again

The phrase "and in his senior year was the head cheerleader" seems to be a direct insult, as its tone is intentionally misleading. The fact that George Bush once led a skit in highschool to mock other school seems an insignificant fact only included in this article for the purpose of mockery. Besides, it's not even a true statement, as whatever Bush was doing certainly had nothing to do with the cheerleading organization in his school. If we must include it, at least explain it more so that readers don't get the wrong idea. Where the are wikipedia's "impartiality standards" now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.135.164 (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read source 27, the new york times article. It looks like those are two seperate events. one that he was the head chearleader when he was a senior in highschool. the other that he dressed up as a cheerleader to make fun of another school. It reads to me like a true statement that he was the head cheerleader. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from TexasRangersFan, 21 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The section referring to the firing of federal prosecutors needs updated.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/21/justice-dept-opts-file-charges-bush-era-attorney-firings/?test=latestnews

Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

   Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The investigation looked into whether the Bush administration improperly dismissed nine U.S. attorneys as a way to influence investigations. The scandal contributed to mounting criticism that the administration had politicized the Justice Department, a charge that contributed to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In 2008, the Justice Department assigned Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with a history of rooting out government wrongdoing, to investigate the firings.

In particular, she looked into whether the firing of New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias and whether then-Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., or others should be prosecuted for his dismissal.

"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."

Prosecutors also said there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with lying to Congress or investigators.

Iglesias was fired after the head of the state's Republican Party e-mailed the White House to complain that the U.S. attorney in New Mexico was soft on voter fraud. The GOP official asked that Iglesias be replaced so that the state could "make some real progress in cleaning up a state notorious for crooked elections."

Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony to House Judiciary Committee investigators that presidential political adviser Karl Rove was "very agitated" over Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."

Rove has said he played no role in deciding which U.S. attorneys were retained and which were replaced, that politics played no role in the Bush administration's removal of U.S. attorneys and that he never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution.

Domenici made three phone calls to the attorney general in 2005 and 2006 and one to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in October 2006 complaining about the performance of Iglesias.

TexasRangersFan (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Bush administration's Justice Department's actions were inappropriately political, but not criminal, when it fired a U.S. attorney in 2006, prosecutors said Wednesday in closing a two-year investigation without filing charges." Is probably the most critical section of the piece. Quiet frankly, the president can fire anyone he appoints at any time, its just the fact that he was doing it in such a blatant and obvious political fashion was strange. Just look at Karl Rove saying he played no role and politics played no role, in english that translates to he was directly involved and politics played a major role. That might sound as if I'm being unfair to Rove, but just look at the laundry list of quotes we have about him firing those that were not loyal bushies and the like. The section needs a bit of work overall to stress the political rational for the firings earlier, perhaps, but their firings were certainly legal by any stretch if unethical. RTRimmel (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What text needs to be removed, and what should be inserted? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"In late 1972 and early 1973, he drilled with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard..." Claimed, unproven

Yes, George Walker Bush was assigned to Georgia. There is no proof or documentation that he ever reported for duty there. The squadron commander is on record as having no recollection of Bush reporting for duty either.

This sentence should be annotated as "Requires Substantiation" or better yet, removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.238.64 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

German descent?

I looked at the list of bush's ancestors and found that only a few are germans. More of them are actaully scottish or even irish. Can someone correct the "primarily of german descent" sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.102.38 (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide your reference? This is a semi-protected article, and care needs to be taken to avoid including unreferenced claims. In addition, this article may fall under the category of Biographies of living persons, and is thus even more sensitive to unreferenced claims. Finally, this article is a Good Article and has been peer-reviewed. Not to say that your source/claim is incorrect, but it would be wise to discuss this fully before making changes. Amit (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misread... you said you've looked over the reference that already exists in the article and the information concluded from that reference was incorrect? I've also looked at it now (quick link: http://www.wargs.com/political/bush.html) and want to point you to the end of the document, in the "Further Notes" section (scroll ALL the way down). Here, a very straightforward chart is printed which shows clearly that former President Bush had primarily English (~39% confirmed, ~65% likely) and German (~12% confirmed, ~17% likely) descent. This reference seems trustworthy to me, and therefore, I recommend that no changes be made to the article in reference to former President Bush's ancestry. Amit (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker, have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance.[39] In June 2005, the United States Department of Defense released all the records of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, which remain in its official archives.[40]

The above is quoted from the entry. The documents that are mentioned as being in the "official archives" do not mention if those documents refute or confirm the "critics". This would be good information to have included in the last sentence; ".... confirming the criticism." or .... refuting the criticism."

24.115.255.39 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry chart

I like the limited ancestry chart in the article, but I propose that it be hidden by default. It is not really very important to know President Bush's great-great-great-grandfather, and the colors and large size detract from the rest of the article as a whole.  Amit  ►  15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved that chart toward the end of the article. This should prevent it from distracting from the rest of the article, while not needing to collapse the chart. SMP0328. (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Looks good.  Amit  ►  13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlock

Despite possible vandalism open up the article. --93.82.6.206 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't even survive a pending changes trial back in June. Unprotection would be disastrous. If you'd like to suggest an improvement to the article, add {{Editprotected}} to the talk page, along with your suggested change. Another editor will then consider making the edit on your behalf. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

[3] Despite beeing proteced there is vandalism on Barack Obama page. So it makes no difference, protected or not. --93.82.6.206 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Them make yourself a real account and become a legitimate editor, and you won't have to worry about it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 10:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

POV

Is it necessary to put a point on editorials from left leaning publications calling Bush the worst President ever? Unicorn76 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. Is is appropriate to include: 'Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker, have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance' especially given the arguments preventing any mention on Al Gore's page regarding the Oregon sex scandel. If that is not mentioned because it is not 'proven', then this comment regarding Bush should also not be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.144.142.243 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bush war crimes

The war in Iraq has been accused of being a war of aggression. As the President, Bush is simultaneously accused of being a war criminal. Should there not be a mention of these accusations on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.174.156 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You may as well include details on the loonies that accuse him of orchestrating 9/11. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate accusations of war crimes since Iraq was a just war of aggression on behalf of a country against its tyrant, and anyone disputing this version of events has opinions that are not compatible with the eyncyclopedic nature of wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:121.45.185.1 (talk • contribs)

On behalf of a country against its tyrant? seems pretty unencyclopedic and blatant POV to me. There is no such thing as a just war of aggression, according to international law and the UN charter, and there is no dispute that there was no legal or moral basis for the war in Iraq. There should certainly be mentions of the amount of people that died directly due to Bush involvement, and his illegal war, as well as possible war crime tribunals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.225.100 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to ignore UN resolutions and support by Congress. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Until there are international charges brought against the former President, every claim about him being a "war criminal" is POV as well and is basically hearsay. If you've got a reliable source that can affirm a charge in a court of law brought against the former President, then by all means, share it with us.  Amit  ►  13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

which included a housing market correction

Housing market correction is a use of weasel words. should be housing market crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacisd34 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is technical term in economics with a specific meaning. "Crash," on the other hand, is not a specific term and does not carry specific meaning. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated image

An image of President Bush with Pope John Paul II appears twice in the article: under Foreign policy and Foreign perceptions. Is this duplication correct or does it need to be fixed? SMP0328. (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also just noticed that. Needs to be fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.158.127 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Glennconti (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Decision Points

Memoir by GW Bush43 is out Nov 9, 2010 titled "[Decision Points]" which should be added to the End of page references Here's amazon.com ref for that new memoir by Bush43 ... http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288999056&sr=1-1 huangde hoondai sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be wikispam. SMP0328. (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Post-presidency section should be updated to show that Decision Points has been published. 69.99.140.114 (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are related to Hugh Hefner

I was reading through an mX newspaper from March 2, 2010, and I discovered that in one caption, entitled "It's True!", it states:

Former president George W. Bush and Senator John Kerr [sic] are related (to) Hugh Hefner. The Playboy founder is ninth cousin to both men.

Further research points to an article written by Joel Roberts for CBS News, Bush, Kerry & Hefner: Odd Cousins.

Although a truly unusual piece of information, is this worth adding to Wikipedia? Eug.galeotti (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's trivia. SMP0328. (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict) No. It's absolutely USELESS trivia. Do enough searching and one can prove that just about any two people are related, especially if they are from the same country and ethnic backgrounds. Of what importance or notability is relation to Hefner? I cannot think of any. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist history

I noticed there been much activity on this page within the last months, I would like to remind everyone to stay neural about some very controversial decisions this president made which are still in effect in the world we live in today. I do see that some "failing" during his leadership have been toned down. Wikipedia is not the place for history revisionism, all negative and positive things some be brought to the table so the reader can decide for them-selfs about there opinion on his presidency. Thanatos465 (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As with all BLPs, neutral content is essential. This is especially true regarding articles about controversial figures. SMP0328. (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything said here. However, I do want to point out that opinions do change over time. Apparently Bush has had an up-tick in his favorable ratings since he left office. Is WP going to be a time capsule or reflect the views as currently held? I don't know. This is a reference to the up-tick which may explain what is happening here. Glennconti (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would note that many of the controversial things he did were continued by Obama and are now less controversial. So, were they really controversial, or was it simply that the media in general did not like him and made everything he did seem controversial. Now that Obama has either decided to continue, or feels he must continue those positions, that same media is left in an awkward position. This revisionist history that you are deriding is the consciquence of the Obama fawning media being put into a situation where to continue to criticize Bush would require criticism of Obama. Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. It is with no small irony, that for Obama decisions to look good, Bush's must all be viewed more favorably. Unless the left decide to suddenly turn strongly on Obama, Bush's decisions will/have to be veiwed more favorably in a historical context. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Arrest attempt in Switzerland

I've moved the info about the attempt to arrest Bush in Switzerland to a "Charges of human rights violations" subsection of the "Post-presidency" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't get ahead of yourself. It was not an attempted arrest. Amnesty International was asking Switzerland to investigate Bush. Bush had diplomatic immunity. Please read the references. Moving the material is fine with me. Glennconti

Sorry, bad move. That is, the move itself. The cancelled visit to Switzerland does not deserve a stand-alone heading. Not significant enough. I think it sits better where it was: perceptions of Bush, or reactions to Bush-- this being only one of many reactions. But I won't move it back until we have a consensus on how to handle it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, some other editor decided without waiting for a consensus simply to remove it, with this edit That is also wrong. It belongs where it started so I will simply return it where it was.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate in the "Post-presidency" section, because that's when it happened, but there could also be a separate "Controversies" section. The problem with it being in the "Foreign perceptions" section is that the Center for Constitutional Rights, one of the human rights groups involved, is an American organization. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It might also fit in the "Foreign policies" section "Interrogation policy" subsection. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not recommend having a Contraversies section. For a US president it would be too large, since every president has many controversial issues/events that occur during their term(s). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I think the "Interrogation policies" subsection is a better location. I'll boldly move it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor orphaned paragraph. Homeless, unwelcome anywhere. Interrogation policies seems to be about the polices as they developed, and not about the reaction to them two years after Bush left office. But I'll leave it alone for now until we figure out where the poor thing can find a suitable home.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

At some point there may be enough similar instances to populate a separate section. There is certainly no agreement that Bush is entitled to diplomatic immunity. Such immunity would tear a huge loophole in the Convention Against Torture. In Pinochet's case, Great Britain concluded that he was not entitled to diplomatic immunity. (See Augusto Pinochet's arrest and trial#Arrest in London.) JamesMLane t c 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please. Comparing Bush's authorization of waterboarding on a couple of terrorists is in no way comparable to the actions of Pinochet. Arzel (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In this context, they're completely comparable. The issue is diplomatic immunity. Someone who has complete diplomatic immunity can't be prosecuted for genocide or for a parking ticket. The Pinochet example disproves any contention that all former heads of state are always entitled to such complete immunity (which is what I think was Pinochet's contention in the British courts). There aren't many precedents, of course, because there aren't all that many former heads of state against whom there's a colorable case.

It might turn out that the line is drawn where you suggest. Maybe a former head of state who has ordered the torture of only a few fellow human beings is entitled to take advantage of some sort of "boys will be boys" exception to the Convention Against Torture. At this juncture, though, I don't think we can safely assert either that Bush would have been entitled to immunity or that he would not have been. JamesMLane t c 06:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed captivating and lively as a Pinochet vs. Bush, quality versus quantity debate might be-- I hope the above editors will forgive a gentle reminder, taken from the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are editing an encyclopedia, not moderating an O'Reiily or Chris Mathews show. Which I grant would be more fun.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone really believe that Bush will EVER be arrested for anything? Come on! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More Irish than German

I looked at Bush's family tree and he has more Irish ancestors than German ancestors. Can someone change the "primarily of german descent" part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.136.167 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the WARGS source used, wouldn't something like

Descended from early American colonists, Bush also has distant English, French, German, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh ancestry.

be much more accurate? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

George P. Shultz's central role in supporting Bush

On 25 February 2011, I added the following in the 2000 Primary section. In my opinion, the deletions first by The Magnificent Clean-keeper and then by Jojhutton were unwarranted: George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/

1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html

Italus (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Many times random information is added to articles. Sometimes this information is relevant and useful, but sometimes the information tends to be non-notable. It would be nice if we could add every single detail about a persons life, but that just isn't doable. Its best, in a biography about a persons entire life, not to add non-notable information. We do this so the article will not get too big and hard to read. The general reader should be able to get a good idea of who this person is, without being overwhelmed with tons of information that sometimes tend to make the article unreadable.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's far too much detail for this bio. With some excess verbiage removed, it is a notable and reliable sourcing, to Schultz, of the genesis of Bush's candidacy for president, which is a more prominent aspect of other articles; as such, you should bring it to an article at which it would be more relevant to, such as Presidency of George W. Bush or the too-slight Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2000. Abrazame (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I had included it in Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2000 and in United States presidential election, 2000. Both were deleted by Fat&Happy. Italus (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You should probably bring that up with him, but you should read WP:UNDUE first and perhaps get an idea where we may be coming from.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I just found the full transcript of the Frontline program at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/etc/script.html , where the Shultz quotations in my first ref can be found. Italus (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Assassination additions

I just recently removed the addition of some "assassination attempts" to the article. It was my understanding that at least the outside the White House. Attempt would not be included because Bush was not the target. The other addition I'm not sure about, but was not cited and I've never heard of that happening. Otherwise, if anyone wants to open up a new discussion, this would be the section to do so. Jojhutton (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Early childhood to midlife/ Texas Air National Guard section discrepancy

I noticed that the final statement in this section indicates that he fulfilled his six years, and makes no mention of the controversy surrounding it (although this is linked at the start of the subsection to the controversey page).

This does not match what we have in the controversy page, in which the sources indicate there is doubt, if not direct statement, that he did not finish those six years. Conversely, the reference given in the main article to support that is a transcript from a Fox News panel discussion, which is not able to be checked (no direct link). This is not the sort of citation that holds up well, even if it wasn't contrary to our other page.

I'm not an adovcate for conspiracy theory and I want to keep this as NPOV as possible. My recommendation, therefore, is either to:

A) remove the "6 year" portion of the statement, leaving "He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974", allowing the issue to be dealt with on the controversy page; or

B) recognize there is a controversy with a statement like "There is disagreement as to whether Bush fulfilled his full 6-year committment". This is a statement of fact, rather than opinion...it simply says there is disagreement, not that there is evidence, etc, which would be a subjective claim.

As it stands, however, something needs to be changed, as the current, unlinked and questionably credible citation, does not represent similar discussion on the controversy page. I'd like to hear feedback before a change is made.Jbower47 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking out the 6 year bit for now, since not having it in there seems to be the default option. I'd still recommend having a sentence that indicates there is disagreement (since we link to that subpage, and there should be explanation why). However, I'm hoping there are other opinions offered here, so this is not a unilateral decision....anyone?Jbower47 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wars and Foreign Policy

Wars and Foreign Policy as a heading would be more informative and a better way to emphasize this section. Every president has a foreign policy; very few have started two long lasting wars during their terms. Nitpyck (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Serve

I notice most other recent presidents use the word 'serve' in the opening line. So the opening line should be changed to 'served as president from 2001 to 2009' or 'was president serving from 2001 to 2009' as other recent former presidents. Rodchen (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked back as far as FDR and found that "most" do have "served" in the opening, but not by much and there doesn't seem to be a set stylistic approach to this. The ones that open with more than one description do not mention it, as in the case of this article. Which opens with GWB being the 43rd President(2001-2009) and 46th Governor of Texas(1995-2000), with parenthesis for the years. This style is not used for WJC, which only opens up describing his Presidency(which does include "served"), and in fact doesn't even mention he was Governor of Arkansas until the 3rd section of the article. GHWB opens up with "served" for his presidency, and then in the next sentence lists his previous office holdings. Ronald Reagan opens up with his Presidency, Governorship and acting career, but has only two mentions of "served" in his whole article, describing his position as president of SAG and the fact William Holden was his best man. The others with served as an opening are Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, LBJ and JFK. While Nixon, Ike, Truman and FDR all do not. So that's 5 without "served" and six with it. So there does not seem to be a stylistic commonality here, and I think the opening sentence(which looks good and sounds correct) should probably stay as is. 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for war

There should be more than just WMD mentioned in here. That was 1 reason, but not the only reason for going to war. 24.10.14.59 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Like PNAC. Wolfowitz. Atleast mention it. They were openly saying that they wanted to stabilize the Middle East by bringing democracy to Iraq as far back as 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.157.112 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this section in the proper tense?

"During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book, which is expected to be published under the title Decision Points in 2010" As this book has been published for some time now, updating the tenses seems logical. Maybe: "During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book. The book titled Decision Points was published in 2010." References: Amazon Page with the publishing date on it. The New York Times book review dated a few days before the book came out. Online card catalog page for the book from the library of congress. CygnetFlying (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Arrest record

Shouldn't this article, in all fairness, list his arrest record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mophedd (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree.-Flagg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.175 (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a listing of all offenses is in order...that skirts the boundaries of being not notable enough/undue weight, etc. However, a reference that he has a record, or some description therein would probably be about right.204.65.34.242 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

2002 Congressional election gains

Why is there no mention of this phenomenon (2002 Congressional election gains) throughout the article? Mid-term gains are considered quite rare.

This is clearly linked to his approval ratings at the time by Gallup analysts, & merits mention in my opinion.Jpabc (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Learned about the death of Osama bin Laden while eating soufflés at a place he frequents

I didn't add the material, but I noticed the entire section's removal on the basis that what he was eating was irrelevant. I would say that as Bush himself chose to begin his statement on the death of bin Laden by speaking of the soufflés, he found it relevant, and that's its relevancy here. Here is his actual quote: "I was eating soufflé at Rise Restaurant with Laura and two buddies. I excused myself and went home to take the call."

Here is that quote reported by Time magazine. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/14/quote-bush-was-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-about-bin-laden/#ixzz1MMx2W2c2

Here it is in USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/05/bush-was-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-with-news-of-the-bin-laden-killing/1

Here from ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reacts-publicly-osama-bin-laden-death/story?id=13592860 http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/george-w-bush-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-about-osama-bin-laden.html

The Atlantic notes that he frequents the place, which serves only soufflés, and prints the menu. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/when-bush-got-the-bin-laden-call-while-eating-a-souffle/238862/

The Times of India leads with the soufflé as well: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/article/06Qg9Km2B62Mx?q=osama+dead

The conservative Free Republic notes it in the headlines they publish, but for some reason that domain name is banned from use on this page.

The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/bush-killing-bin-laden-a-good-call/delayed-reaction/#

NPR, so maligned by conservatives, actually takes it out of the headline. http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2011/may/13/president-bush-obama-made-a-good-call-on-bin-laden-mission/

CBS leads with the quote that he "wasn't overjoyed" at the news, but mentions the soufflés. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/14/politics/main20062893.shtml

As does Bush's local Dallas CBS the Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/13/2873049/bush-says-he-wasnt-overjoyed-by.html

Conservativebyte.com's subhead is "take a byte out of Liberals", and they note it in their article: http://conservativebyte.com/2011/05/george-w-bush-gives-first-public-reaction-to-osama-bin-laden-death/

It is more editorially irresponsible to remove the entire section on the basis of not understanding that Bush's quote figures into it than it is to add a detail one might view as secondary to the point. Everybody eats three meals a day or so, it was Bush's choice to respond to the question "where were you/what were you doing when you found out?" not with "I was out with my wife and friends," or "I was having dinner with friends and family", but "I was eating soufflé." Abrazame (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought the soufflé reference was to make fun of Bush. People have tried to do stuff like that many times before with this article. The new material should be worded so it's clear that mocking is not intended. SMP0328. (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What difference does this make? I can see why a newspaper would publish the fact (it's a fun slice-of-life tidbit), but how does it matter here? -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Catholicism speculation"

Is this section really necessary? His claimed religious beliefs don't even get that much weight; is there any reason why some peoples' speculation should get more?--Ibagli (Talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of "George W. Bush- Six Months From Today" cartoon in the "In popular culture" section

The "George W. Bush- Six Months From Today" cartoon has been removed from the "In popular culture" section based on the claim that it "is not noteworthy". Matthew Filipowicz (the producer of this film) has been featured on CNN, NPR, PBS, HBO, BBC, Ain’t It Cool News, the online versions of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic and the London Times, as well as Air America’s the Thom Hartman Show, The Young Turks, Ring Of Fire and great deal of sites in the liberal blogosphere including Crooks & Liars, DailyKos, Brave New Films, and many more. He has created cartoons for VoteVets, the ACLU-SC, Mother Jones Magazine, Netroots Nation, and the National Conference For Media Reform. I believe this cartoon is noteworthy and should be reinstated. Prunesqualer (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it noteworthy, and why does it make sense to include it in this article? Noting places that have mentioned it answers neither question. -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to strike out my last comment. I should have said "The work of Matthew Filipowicz (the producer of this film) has been featured…" More importantly I took the "featured on" information from Filipowicz’s own "Headzup" web site and on inspection some of the "featured on" links seem very fleeting and tendentious.

Re. including a mention of this short cartoon in the "In popular culture" section- I guess the matter of what constitutes noteworthy is something of a grey aria on Wiki. I Googled "George W. Bush- Six Months From Today" in quotes and got 37,500 hits and the vast majority of the hits I looked at (I only looked at the first 50) where about this "headzup" cartoon. Personally I would call that noteworthy, but then I happen to think the cartoon is very funny, so prehaps that’s swaying my judgement. Prunesqualer (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

remove s protection

the semi protection of this article needs to be removed so that i and others can edit it. this is supposed to be wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can edit it. Nothing prevents you from pressing "create account." I think the risk of vandalism on this article is obvious enough. Anyone can still edit it, but the administrators will be able to hold them accountable if they vandalize it. --DavidSSabb (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture = trivia section

I have tagged the In popular culture section as being trivial. That section is simply a listing of some television shows and movies that have mocked Bush. Nothing in that section is notable; if I'm wrong, then similar sections should be created in other BLPs about recent Presidents. I recommend that section be removed from this article for lacking notability. SMP0328. (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That section should be removed. It's not much different than listing anti-Clinton books like Slick Willie in Bill Clinton's BLP. Drrll (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the In popular culture section from the article and placed it here so there can be further discussion, if anyone wants to discuss it.

Removed In popular culture section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bush has been portrayed, often critically or satirically, in television, films and other media. In 2001, a political satire/sitcom titled That's My Bush! ran for one season, with Bush portrayed by Timothy Bottoms. In 2006, a mockumentary titled Death of a President, filmed in the UK, was based on a fictional future assassination of Bush. In the 2007 episode of American Dad!, "Bush Comes to Dinner", Rodger gets Bush to start drinking again which causes him to go crazy by running around naked. The 2007–2008 animated series Lil' Bush, with Bush voiced by Chris Parson, lasted two seasons. In the 2007 film Postal, based on the video game series, Brent Mendenhall portrays Bush as Osama bin Laden's best friend. In the 2008 film Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, the two title characters meet Bush, portrayed by James Adomian. A 2008 film titled W., about Bush's life and presidency, starred Josh Brolin in the role of Bush.

SMP0328. (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a trivial listing. I think that a valid section on the depiction of GWB in popular culture might be possible, but this isn't it. What is needed are sources that describe how Bush was depicted, and perhaps also any commentary on what effect this had on elections, his presidency etc. He certainly seems to have attracted a great deal of satirical response (US readers may not be familiar with Steve Bell of The Guardian's cartoon depictions of GWB [4] - In my opinion possibly the cruelest depiction of a mainstream foreign politician seen in contemporary British mass media - and yet strangely sympathetic). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely trivia. I support removal. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If one were to list all of the depictions or mentions of Bush in movies it would be quite a list. As president he would naturally receive mention. I support removal, however the film about him "W" perhaps could be included. Perhaps a review of other presidents should be done as well. Arzel (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction to the original post in this section was similar to Arzel's comment above; most of the section is biographically insignificant trivia that should be removed, but the film W. is a serious work entirely about Bush and should be mentioned somewhere. That one work alone doesn't merit a section, though. It does have a two-sentence section in Public image of George W. Bush; maybe that could be copied or paraphrased in the "Image" section here. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That article has many problems and its reference to W is very biased, so copying & pasting that sentence is out. Finally, W basically was a mockumentary and so shouldn't be used in a fact-based article about George W. Bush. SMP0328. (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

'W' was not a mockumentary, inasmuch as it neither emulates the documentary style nor purports to be real. It's a biopic. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)thatguamguy

Even if it's a biopic, it still doesn't belong in the article for it isn't a "real" portrayal of Bush. I don't know if you were claiming it belonged in the article, but I thought I should make this point anyway. SMP0328. (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, re: W.. First, I think getting into what is and isn't a "real" protrayal of Bush is inherently subjective territory. Regardless, something being a "real" portrayal isn't necessarily the test of it being linked to a biographical article. Braveheart isn't a "real" portrayal of William Wallace, the character from Pogo isn't a "real" portrayal of Joe McCarthy, Yellow Submarine isn't a "real" portrayal of the Beatles, etc. But all were directly influenced, targeted, and related to the person or persons. What would be indefensible would be to claim that W. was a direct re-enactment of Bush's life and times. But that claim is not being made. W. is relevant to Bush as it directly , and notably, speaks to public perception of the man and his legacy, etc.204.65.34.94 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This section does seem to be trivial though I know as Wikipedia editors we are not supposed to allow bias in this case political working off the way the Bill Clinton page is set up according to the section above it may not belong but prehaps a good compromise would be a seperate page with the removed information that is referenced removing the trivial aspects directly from the George Bush page. Anyone think this is a possible compromise to come to a resoloution?Supereditor8000 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing Important International Event

I am not well enough versed to add this as an article item. I ask why the incident with the Chinese over a US AWACS recon plane that the Chinese AF forced to land, the pilot and crew were held for, if I remember correctly, about a month... Happened on Bush'es watch was resolved and was a serious international incident that was overshadowed just a few months later by the 9/11 events. none the less it should be included as it was a major event when it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.13.167 (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a limit as to how much can be comfortably jammed into the main biography article. This article links to George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States, which mentions the incident and links to Hainan Island incident for details. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I just scanned the article and found that various forms of the word criticism are used more than 35 times, twice in the lead. That's more than twice per section including references, notes etc. This is unfounded and ridiculous, it's clear that democrats had their way with this man's article. I suggest we reword and in some cases reinvent because this article is very, very far from NPOV standards.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is disingenuous. Even if the number of times a word appeared had ANY relevance, simply looking at the root of a word that shows up on ,many different contexts is an incorrect way to go about assessing it. For example, out of the 34 instances of some form of the word "critic", 8 were found in the references section, and were titles of references. 2 were "critical", in the sense of being urgent (i.e. "aid was critical for the hard pressed nation"), 6 were references to criticisms MADE BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION or conservatives. 8 were references to critics, not criticism...i.e. it was being used as a noun to name someone ("Bob smith, a critic of x, ..."). Only 10 of the instance actually were "criticism" in which the reference applied to someone being critical of Bush. Furthermore, the fact that someone was criticized is a fact. You may not agree with the criticism, but that's different than disagreeing a criticism took place. I can say "I think Ghandi was too violent." Obviously, my criticism is incorrect. But I did MAKE the criticism, whether you agreed with it or not. IN this instance, the article is well referenced, and the times in which it refers to criticism against Bush, wiki takes no stance on the validity of the criticism, only that it occurred. I do not see any NPOV in action. Whatever side of the fence you fall on, Bush's presidency was marked by a lot of controversy and criticism. Even if you think it was all hooey, it doesn't change that fact that the criticism WAS MADE. That's all the references are stating. I think you need to assume Good Faith and suggest specific edits rather thank making blanket statements about the article. 204.65.34.94 (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

I agree with jacksoncw. Compare this page to the page of our current president whom has been the brunt of as many critics but there is not a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.213.140 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, the original poster's assertion is simply false as stated. As shown in my previous post, his reliance on the appearance of some form of thew word criticism is not correct...as very few of the supposed instances were speaking about criticisms OF Bush, some of them actually referring to criticisms made BY the administration, not of it. As per wiki policy, please suggest specific changes to discuss here, not make generalized complaints. And I'd especially suggest that you assume good faith on behalf of your fellow editors, not resorting to inflammatory language about one political viewpoint or another. In response to the Obama comparison, there are criticisms of his policy on both the main page and in the sub-articles. Regardless, a perceived lack of criticism on Obama's page is not a reason to REMOVE criticisms on this page, which are sources and have been vetted over the process of this article's editing. I'd suggest, if you can approach the matter with NPOV in mind, and you see an imbalance, that you work to add material based on reliable sources to the Obama article. A perceived deficit of information in one article is not a reason to remove information from another article.204.65.34.216 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Average student

Could some of the facts be checked on Mr. Bush's education. Mr. Bush is stated a saying that he was an average student. But if he was a average student how did he then manage to get a Masters from the Harvard Business School. Could we have an additional fact stating what his actual marks were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.140.114 (talk • contribs)

Remember that having an MBA or any Masters Degree isn't necessarily a sign of academic super-excellence. While somewhat of an oversimplification, it essentially means that you continued your studies for two years after getting your bachelors degree. Nor should the "Harvard" tagline immediately raise a flag of "super student." Getting into graduate schools can be easier than getting into undergraduate schools if for nothing else than the smaller pool of applicants. As an example, today the acceptance rate of Harvard Business School is roughly twice that of the Harvard undergraduate university. Having an MBA does certainly mean you have a superior educational background for certain careers than others, but it might not mean that superior education was achieved by superior academic performance. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

AIDS

Before I start this, I'm a Democrat. I've only voted for one Republican in my life. I can't stand Bush. But, his work fighting AIDS in Africa needs more attention in this article. Even Bono gives him credit for it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's true; however, as a Democrat you should know that most of the emphasis was on abstinence and partner faithfulness, not on treatment or condoms.--Louiedog (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well even that could be added, considering there's exactly one line about pledging money to Africa. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AIDS is number 17 on the World Health Organization's list of deadly diseases and has been dubbed one of the most preventable deadly diseases. So it was definitely a smart move for Bush to "emphasize abstinence and partner faithfulness". Also, 64% of people with aids are homosexuals who widely have multiple sex partners. Don't even try to imply that it was a bad move for Bush to emphasize that.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is not for us to discuss what we personally think was a smart move or not, or to express our own opinions on AIDs. Wiki is about verifiable, reputable sources. The talk page is not a political forum (in response to the previous comment). Please make suggestions pertaining to the article, not debate politics.204.65.34.94 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the 64% figure likely applies in the US, but Bush's AIDS fund was targetted overseas, especially Africa, where most with HIV/AIDS are heterosexual women. The controversy over the "global gag rule", abstinence education, etc. was a major one, reflected in a number of high-profile articles in major newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.132.174 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

well HotStop go ahead and put it in with references.Logjam42 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, Washington Post

An editor keeps saying that the Washington Post and various other publications that have attacked Bush are politically neutral. I'm pretty sure all of those publications are left-wing. The Washington Post always endorses Democrats. Shouldn't it be pointed out that they aren't neutral?--RJR3333 (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking whether it should be pointed out, or stating? With text based communication, preciseness is needed. Your wording sounds like a question, but your punctuation isn't a question mark. Regardless, your or anyone else's personal opinion of those publications and their neutrality, or lack thereof, isn't enough to get such a statement added to the article. We work by reliable sources, not original research. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If I can find a reliable source saying that their left-wing would that be different?--RJR3333 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus of reliable sources is that The Washington Post is left-wing, that information can be added to the article on The Washington Post. Unless reliable sources say that the newspaper's left-wing orientation influenced it's characterization of Bush, adding the description to this article would probably be viewed as original research by synthesis. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Book tour – so what?

Are we really so hard up for non-negative things to say about Bush that the fact he – like every other famous person who wrote a book in the last 20 years – promoted his book on the talk show circuit needs to be used as space filler? This information is biographically important to a former governor and president... exactly how? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine its been deleted. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First off keep your personal opinions out of this, second off why shouldn't it be kept its infromation about George Bush that people might want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.22.116 (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism

I pointed this out on the Obama page using this page as a comparison. The Bush article here has dozens of references to controversies and criticisms of things Bush did. Maybe over emphasized, maybe not. The Obama article has scant reference to anything controversial or any criticism. Wikipedia aims for NPOV and as an encyclopedia it is important that two fairly extreme presidents be given different levels of treatment because one is charasmatic and left wing, and the other not so much. Either the alternate points of view are overemphasized on this page or underemphasized on the Obama page. I have neither the knowhow nor the time to undertake a project to bring some balance here but I invite the hundreds of watchers to weigh in 70.26.39.203 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may, Bush has had 5 years more experience in controversial -- often far-more controversial -- issues as of typing this, and 8 more years of after-the-fact revelations about the pursuits within his administration. It may not be the whole explanation, but point-by-point, I think it's most of it. The amount of weight given to individual criticisms, however, may be more disputable. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am admittedly no fan of Bush, but demanding an equivalence in criticism of the actions of Bush and Obama is in effect demanding that they be treated as equally good or bad presidents. In the first place, Obama's term is not yet over and historical perspective is lacking. In the second place that's rather like insisting that Warren G. Harding and Abraham Lincoln be treated as equally good presidents. The facts simply don't support such a claim, and making it would just be ignoring historical fact in favor of PC. Besides, it seems to me that a good deal of effort has been expended in this article to portray GWB in a positive light - for instance, including his (alleged) reading list. Gillartsny (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To add to the length of time argument, President Bush has had not just one term in office, but completed two terms. Even if the criticism is restricted to his presidential career, he's had 8 years of actions. President Obama is only in the first term he is allowed to serve, and has not completed it. It is still less than three years since he took office. Obama's current time in the oval office is roughly 35% that of Bush's. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

'Foreign perceptions' section image

User:Fat&Happy has removed a recently-added image in the 'Foreign perceptions' section as "unnoteworthy POV"[5]> This is the image in question:

File:Nationalist mural, Belfast.jpg

A Nationalist mural in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Personally, I think the image is a reasonable enough portrayal of a "Foreign perception" (which is of course a POV, but that is what the section is about), and while not particularly noteworthy in itself, is entirely suitable as an illustration of the section topic - caracatures etc of Bush are very much a part of this "perception", and on this basis, I think the image should be restored. Apart from any other considerations, it adds a little variety to the otherwise-repetitious images in the article. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry to stalk you from the other article to this (I added a new comment on the other article, if you wish to go back there and browse it, by the way), but I just chanced on your comment about Bush: "...which is of course a POV, but that is what the section is about..." I disagree strongly! Nothing in Wikipedia should be about POV. It should all be neutral. If there is some comprehensive study from a reliable, neutral source about Bush's perception in the eyes of others, then this study could be included. But a single stupid hateful drawing? How much does it add to a balanced, neutral and comprehensive understanding of the issue? Practically nothing, I suggest.Rtmcrrctr (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please confine your comments here to the subject under discussion - and please read the relevant Wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS etc, and then compose your arguments in accord with them, rather than attempting to impose your own POV onto article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Just removed another POV image - this time of a sign calling Bush a "Terrorist". Interesting to note, that this sign belonged to some radical Left group. The contributor who placed it obviously decided that it is appropriate to push a radical Left POV by this image. It seems that this section - namely, "Foreign perception" - is viewed by some (mostly, I would hazard a guess, hailing to us from the radical Left) as some back-door to insert their anti-Bush POV. It is not, and if too many people seem to mistake it for such, maybe it should be shut down. IOW, if having a section titled "Foreign perceptions" is viewed by radical Lefties as some invitation to use this article to hurl their well known Bush-hatred, then maybe this section should be removed altogether. I checked that Obama does not have a "foreign perception" section in his article, even though I would assume that by now not exactly everyone in the world are such great admirers of him either.

P.S.

I think I just noticed that the said contributor has just undone my change while I was writing this comment, so instead of engaging him in edit-wars I will leave it to someone from Wikipedia staff to look into this matter. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions on the motivations of other contributors - see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

about the junior / Jr.

Hej,
Yes, I now know it is incorrect, but I wonder should the fact that the often applied (by media over here at least) , Jr. is incorrect, resp. just a nickname inside the Bush-family, not anyways be mentioned (briefly) somewhere in the article ?
I really thought it was part of his official name, until I found the explanation here : Suffix (name)
I read some of the archived discussion search results on this (too many to read them all), to see if this had been decided before, but they seemed to focus solely on the junior being incorrect, not on should it still go into the article. Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Fiscal figures etc. removed

The article is missing the main fiscal figures of the Bush administration. I added some of them in the following insertion, which was completely removed by another user even though the first paragraph is from the Congressional Budget Office, and in the last (third) paragraph just a dead link was replaced by a working one (it was reverted back to the dead link). The explanation was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Forp (talk): Removed polemic & restored sourced material. (TW))". If there is something to be improved in these well-sourced and relatively objective central fiscal figures, please, improve instead of removing them without replacing by an even better corresponding improvement. --Forp (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

During the George W. Bush administration federal government spending increased from $1789 billion to $2983 billion (70%) but the revenues only increased from $2025 billion to $2524 billion (from 2000 to 2008). Individual income tax revenues increased by 14%, corporate tax revenues by 50%, customs and duties by 40%. Discretionary defense spending increased by 107%, discretionary domestic spending by 62%, Medicare spending by 131%, social security by 51%, and income security spending by 130%. Cyclically adjusted revenues rose by 35% and spending by 65%.

The number of economic regulation governmental workers was increased by 91,196, whereas Bill Clinton had cut down the number by 969.

In a February 28, 2001, message to the Congress, Bush estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years.

I then Googled for further sources, should also the following paragraph be added? --Forp (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also proportionally Bush increased government spending more than any predecessor since LBJ (including).

Are these facts meaningful in some way? Or are they just random facts used to reinforce a negative stereotype? 79.211.131.132 (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They are among the most important figures about the presidency, and they are not to reinforce the stereotype: without these the article pretty much builds a stereotype. Of course, these paragraphs alone would not suffice, also much of the rest is needed to get a pluralistic view on Bush. Maybe some republican deleted them as they did not fit to their "anti-spending" hero? Or a left-wing democrat liking the biased "anti-spending" stereotype image that cannot stand those fiscal facts? Or somebody just did not believe those numbers and did not check the sources? Or? Hard to know, but these facts do not reinforce the stereotype. --Forp (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. These are clear and relevant facts related to the presidency of the person in the article. How can these not be relevant!? We should have a fact box in each president's Wikipedia article to showcase these kind of objective measures of all presidents. Also, I don't really understand the quarrel about "reinforcing a negative stereotype" - is Wikipedia supposed to be a politically correct and censored source that only showcases a specific point of view? Have I understood Wikipedia's rules poorly somehow, that all relevant and objective facts should be included? --Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say these are relevant, especially because then-electee Bush campaigned with both issues. I think it is somewhat relevant as to his legacy and his integrity how he fared on such, for once, very clear cut measures, which he himself chose. Plus, that same yardstick has already been applied to most of the former US Presidents within Wikipedia, so that it's only just to continue the tradition. Decoy (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Bush found guilty of war crimes at an international war crimes tribunal. Relevant?

Nombember 2011 George Bush and Tony Blair was found guilty of War crimes at the international Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission [1, 2, 3]. Bush has even been sought arrested in Africa by Amnesty International [4]

It's my point of view that such information are relevant and should be included on this page also. It's already in Wikipedia [1].

Best regards, Martin Kaarup, Sweden

Sources:

[1] "Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission, viewed 2011-12-19

[2] Kuala Lumpur tribunal: Bush and Blair guilty, 2011-11-28, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html, viewed 2011-12-19

[3] Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes (Video), 2011-11-23, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211590.html, viewed 2011-12-19

[4] Amnesty calls on Africans to arrest Bush, 2011-12-02, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213316.html, viewed 2011-12-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.24.106 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually bother to read our article on this 'commission'? It has no authority whatsoever. It's creator, Mahathir Mohamad, is a questionable character to be running a 'tribunal', given his past record. While there may be a strong case that Bush should be held accountable for his actions (and Blair too, for that matter), nonsense like this isn't going to achieve anything beyond making more serious endeavours to bring this about lose credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Check out this article on the "war crimes." I don't think one person or country can unilaterally declare someone a war criminal. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/22/george-w-bush-tony-blair-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmac36 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Post-presidency" section

I would be surprised if this correction has not come up. But in case it has not, the following statement is false: "In February 2011, Bush scrapped a planned visit to Switzerland because he feared arrest by Swiss authorities based on his acknowledgement that he ordered the waterboarding of detainees". No official statement made by Bush or those representing him made the claim that he "feared arrest" by the Swiss. In fact, numerous other articles - by more reputable news sources as well - directly contradict this statement. For example, the following AP news source states:

"Bush spokesman David Sherzer expressed regret that the Feb. 12 event was scrapped, but declined to comment on the reasons for the cancellation." It goes on to say: "A Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman told the AP that Bush would have enjoyed immunity from prosecution for any actions taken while in office based on an initial assessment of international law." Finally, "A lawyer for the Jewish nonprofit that had invited Bush, Robert Equey, said that the looming protests, including the potential for violence, were the primary factors for cancelling the event, not the threat of legal action against Bush." These statements are direct quotes from those leaders in power who know the situation first hand. There are no such quotes in the link cited on this Wikipedia article. The claim by protestors that their protests caused President Bush to cancel his trip lacks evidence, and is based more on speculation - given the statements from the authorities above who have the power to make these types of decisions - possibly to further their own agenda. Whatever the reasons, the article needs to be updated to erase the inherent bias it presents, perhaps as follows:

"In February 2011, a planned visit by Bush was canceled due to concerns of riots erupting from protests, stemming from the controversy over waterboarding of enemy combatants during the Bush Administration."

The next sentence discussing the Humans rights organizations submitting paperwork is false. In fact, they did not submit any paperwork because President Bush never made his trip to Switzerland (source 2). Therefore that sentence should also be deleted.

Source 1: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195#.TwvYRPmwXsQ Source 2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/07/george-bush-issued-travel-warning

I would make these edits myself but the page is locked down. To the moderator - please make these much needed corrections to erase false information from this page. Thank you.--Scuba31 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are a registered editor, so you should be able to make those edits. SMP0328. (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is "semi-locked" down. I am a new editor to the community, so maybe that is the problem? If I knew how to make the changes, believe me, I would.--Scuba31 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This will tell when you can edit the article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So, at the current edit rate of 0.013 edits/day, that would be about... August 22? Time to step up the volume a bit. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting lede

The lede is too long and has too many paragraphs. Perhaps, remove unnecessary details about "Following this and other controversies, as well as the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.217 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)