Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 49

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

→

Teetotaler?

I came across the American Teetotalers Category and noticed that George W. Bush is on it. My understanding of a teetotaler is someone who chooses not to drink alcohol due to personal preference, NOT someone who no longer drinks alcohol because he/she is a recovering alcoholic (or problem drinker). Am I incorrect? If not, can we remove this category from George W. Bush's article? (I'm asking first, since I know edits of this page are controversial) Viciouslies 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

- I don't think that there is a requirement of any particular intention when it comes to teetotaling. My sense is that it is simply not drinking alcoholic beverages; regardless of cause. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to a distinction between those that abstain for personal or moral reasons and those who are recovering alcoholics. Lordjeff06 04:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article now says he became a teetotal. Isn't teetotal the verb and teetotaler the noun?

Teetotal is also an adjective, which is how its currently being used (its "became teetotal" not "became a teetotal").--Mbc362 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

The article's mention of President George W. Bush's response to Katrina is not correct. He sat around for a whole week before he did anything, and even that was weak. There was no massive federal response as the article leads one to believe. He was at Camp David partying while people were suffering. Someone, please change this! I don't know how.

206.219.127.97 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree generally. I assume you understand that Wikipedia articles are to strive toward neutrality in terms of point of view (what they abreviate here as NPOV) and accuracy in terms of facts. I think the best way to keep our personal partisan POV from skewing our perspective and editing on such an important and potentially controversial page is to keep it as factually accurate and researched as possible. This section appears fairly accurate regarding facts and NPOV. It is true that the last sentance of the second paragraph regarding Bush mobilizing the evacuation (if that is what you are focused on) is probably both in need of support and too vague, which makes it therefore potentially innaccurate or misleading. Other than fixing that sentance, I would leave what is here alone and maybe add a sentance about the President's later speech from New Orleans and promise of federal assistance. I would be willing to take this on later in the week if others agree (I am new to Wikipedia as well, but have taken the time this week to become familiar with the ins and outs of editing, including the policies and guidelines. I also have seen that more senior and experienced Wikipedians like ElKevbo and Mbc monitor this page and I would look to their thoughts.)--JLSWiki 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A nice time line of the event can be found here. I agree with JLSWiki that the section is generally correct and well sourced with the exception of that one sentence. A date needs to be given as to exactly when Bush ordered the mobilization of the National Guard, and probably when they actually arrived in the affected areas as well.--Mbc362 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your last sentence was incorrect; it should read: "I also have seen that more senior and experienced Wikipedians like ElKevbo ~~and Mbc~~ monitor this page... :) --Mbc362 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that as stated, it's problematic. The sentence "After the hurricane reached ground, Bush mobilized the Coast Guard and National Guard to help rescue the approximately 60,000 people stranded in New Orleans." is biased in favor of Bush. Technically, if he responded a couple months later, it would still be correct. Also, only 35,000 were rescued and this sentence implies that they all were rescued. This sentence should start with "Two days after the hurricane reached ground, Bush mobilized....to assist those stranded in New Orleans."

Additionally, it doesn't mention the public disapproval with the president's response as documented here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/08/opinion/polls/main824591.shtml

State the facts and let them speak for themselves. Computerhag 01:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a relevant book on Amazon and summarized some of its facts. Dicklyon 02:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude Dicklyon, but I'm not sure that I'm completely comfortable with your edit. First off, it needs to specify which agencies his announcement failed to spur into action. Secondly, the sentence "Bush's team failed to react to the breached levies..." sounds like it could be the personal view of the author rather than established fact. If possible, it should mention specific dates as to when his actions occurred rather than just that he failed to react. If we could get dates as to when he mobilized the national guard, when they arrived in the affected areas, how long the recovery effort lasted, exactly how much federal aid was given, etc., I think the section would be greatly approved. Hopefully the book you've found includes this as well. Lastly, the phrase "trapped in their attics by rising water" seems like it would just add emotional charge to the article without adding any facts.--Mbc362 03:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Mbc362. I think we've just gone from possible POV to extremely POV. There's a happy medium, but lines like "Bush's team failed to react to the breached levies..." need to be avoided. I'd also agree with Mbc362 that specific dates and reaction times should be mentioned. As Computerhag correctly put it: State the facts and let them speak for themselves.' AuburnPilot^talk 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mbc362 and AuburnPilot regarding the specifics (except I think it went from slighlty Bush POV with regard to the one sentance discussed earlier in this string to slightly critic POV with the manner of the latest edits). Criticism and opposition views should be stated as such, including the basis with support, but major areas of criticism should be included in a president's bio as such. I think that Dickylon can add to/edit his prior edit to make that more clear.JLSWiki 13:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The book is available on Amazon's "search inside the book" feature if anyone wants to check it, and others, and attempt a better rewrite. Perhaps I did overcompensate for what I saw as an outrageously misleading POV in the previous version. Dicklyon 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I started adding dates which I felt were relevant, please revise as necessary as I'm not much of a writer. Can anyone find a reliable source for the final death toll or cost of the recovery effort? Every site I view seems to have a different "official" number.--Mbc362 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording my sentences, however I'm still concerned that the phrase "but his announcement failed to spur these agencies to action" comes off as POV. Is there any data to back that up (in which case I would add that to the article) or is that just a claim of the author? Unfortunately, I don't have a physical copy of the book and amazon.com won't let me read past page 6, so I can't view the text you're working off of.--Mbc362 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is close enough to fact or at least a generally accepted view that it just needs tweaking to make sure it is NPOV and supported; perhaps something like: "...but it appeared after a few days his announcement failed to spur these agencies to action sufficient to mitigate the growing disaster." and then of course the references. -JLSWiki 17:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Bush gets all the blame when New Orleans mayor C. Ray Nagin left all those buses sit by the Superdome and Governor Blanco ran and hid. New Orleans isn't the easiest city to get into and out of. It sits in a bowl with few exits. People went up into their attics because they thought they would be safe. I was there during the flood in 1995 and it didn't get quite that high. I doubt anyone thought it would get as bad as it did since it wasn't a direct hit. Some people stayed for there own reasons. Some didn't want to leave their pets behind and some wanted to loot. During that time I saw on TV an interview with Michael Chertoff on one side of the screen talking about the rescue effort while the other side of the screen showed a family playing in a raised pool surrounded by flood water waving at the camera. Not everyone was suffering while Bush was allegedly partying. If the federal government gets any blame for people not wanting to leave until it got really bad then the state and local government should get the blame too. All three levels were playing the blame game when they all should have been working together. Jjmillerhistorian 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article makes reference to President Bush being warned of levees being breeched, then makes reference to the videoconference in which he was told the levees could be topped. Those are two VERY DIFFERENT things and to conflate them to create the appearance that Bush was warned of possible breeches is incorrect and unfair.216.215.144.201 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)jawnybnsc

Stem Cell Research

Would it be possible to qualify that the stem cell research would be on cells slated for destruction?

Specifics of the bill should be included in the bill's article, not Bush's. Since the article already states that the research would be on "discarded human embryos" I don't think anything else needs to be added in that respect. Also, please sign your comments by adding four ~ at the end. Mbc362 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the old "Stem Cell Research" section has made it back into the article. I've got two main problems with it....

"Bush is a supporter of stem cell research, but only to the extent that human embryos are not destroyed in order to harvest additional stem cells." As the controversy nowadays is centered around embryonic stem cell research, not stem cell research in general, this is just a really very positive way of saying "he does not support embryonic stem cell research." Now that the human cloning aspect of the stem cell research controversy has died down, most politicians are in favor of at least allowing research done on cells obtained from adults or placenta (which is what Bush supports). If I may offer a solution: "Bush does not support embryonic stem cell research as it requires the destruction of human embryos, which he sees as the destruction of human life" or something along those lines.
"obviating the need to destroy embryos" This is highly debatable, if not flat out untrue. The current situation dramatically restricts the amount of research that can be done, and I seem to remember a report came out saying of the original stem cell lines, many were corrupted and could no longer be used.--Mbc362 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree all around. There probably should be a small Stem Cell section, but the new material added is definitely done in a POV way (the editor makes it sound like Clinton was against stem cell research, and does not even mention the fact that Bush's one and only use of the veto was on this. Gwernol's version last night is the most factual. I would say revert to that, and improve as necessary.-JLSWiki 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to make it a little better. To make it sound like a Clinton ban in the 90s is POV because it was a GOP idea and bill that never would have gotton there but for 1994 control shift. Still Clinton signed it. Then added the 2006 veto, which if is the most significant point vis a vis bush, without which a stem cell section of his article is silly. Still, could be better with an intro sentance about what stem cell research is and the controversy, and maybe one later about how things are shifting in the past few years because of breakthroughs, but (a) I dont have time and (b) this shouldnt get too long here.-JLSWiki 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitolisation

Should "Social Security" be capitolised in a heading? I'm new and i dont want to edit it unless im sure thuglas^talk|edits 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's a proper noun. --ElKevbo 09:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be capitolised. However, it should be capitalized. Blastfromthepast 00:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Or Capitalised if you are using the english spelling. 194.176.105.35 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Or just yes if you're not insanely picky about spelling. Which I am. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

West Belfast mural

It should be noted that the mural is from a republican (in the IRA sense, not American) area - who are a minority in the country. The majority support the British government (even though it is Labour), although not necessarily it's relations with Bush. Please make a note of something like this on the page as I feel it's biased against British conservative loyalists.

The majority? Please define "country". And "republican" has a single definition - even Buckingham Palace recognises that.--Shtove 02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By country, s/he means NI, which is still predominantly loyalist. 'Republican' has a different usage in NI as someone who supports a united Ireland - someone who (improbably) wanted Ireland united with Gerry Adams as monarch would still be a "Republican", whilst someone who supported the abolition of the British monarchy while still supporting the union of GB & NI would not be a republican in NI usage. (While confusing at first glance, it's no more confusing than the fact that an American opposed to the Republican Party is not a monarchist.) Iridescent 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Response

I just made a one letter change to this page (war on terror-->war of terror) and I have to say I'm impressed with the response time. 30 minutes, exactly. Excellent work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Burrito (talk • contribs) 22:50, December 26, 2006

Please don't do that again. --ElKevbo 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I had better things to do than reverting this page over and over again. If you want to look at how long it takes to correct bad edits you can click history page [1] without changing content. I understand why you did that but please don't do it again.--Pethr 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise it would annoy Quantum Burrito 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about annoying people. It's about the fact this wikipedia is open and free to all those are members. People don't dedicate their time watching every edit, vandalism, etc. They get around to it when they see it and catch them. Plus a test to do what? See how easy it is to get away with an intentional mistake and the response time to revert it? ViriiK 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a policy page on this. Don't make edits with the intention of testing how well Wikipedia functions, because believe me, it's tested every few seconds as it is. You should try being on the Recent Changes patrol for one hour straight; I think you'd have a different opinion after that. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Opiner's removals

Opiner removed (again) these two bits with comment "Im doing the one-sided removals because someone adding the one-sided things. Anyone read this can see its the sneering stance of ridicule and partisan positions = NOT neutral." :

A self-described "war president,"^[1]
Since his re-election, he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandals, as well as domestic issues such as federal funding of stem cell research, Hurricane Katrina, and controversies such as NSA warrantless surveillance activities and the Plame affair.

Personally, I don't see why he thinks either of these is non-NPOV, or "sneering stance of ridicule". The former was very relevant to the re-election being discussed, was based on Bush's own assessment, and was well referenced. The latter could use more references, but seems pretty matter-of-fact and essentially indusputable. Or is there another side to this that I'm missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 23:53, December 27, 2006

Its a matter of style. Example, scare quotes are hardly ever being neutral. War president was being used with as the scare quote introducing skepticism with 'self proclaimed.'

The reasons given for Repulican defeat include Bush stance on stem cell? Or even Guantanamo? Probably not. These are not the interests of the center. only talking points of opposition to itself. Real reasons probably Iraq war has no direction congress is still being corrupt and America economy isnt that good. To discuss this we need sources and from many opinions because the idea that America voters are furious about stem cell and guantanamo is very wrong and not widely agreed. Maybe find a source that says this but its not the conventional wisdom as they call it.Opiner 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotes around the phrase "war president" are not, IMHO, scare quotes. They are quotes necessary to denote a direct quotation. The other issues you discuss are not presented as reasons why the Republicans lost the election. They are presented as topics for which Bush has been criticized.

I agree with Dicklyon that the material is pretty good and shouldn't be removed without discussion. I disagree with your characterization of this specific material and subsequent reasons for removing it. --ElKevbo 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to look less like "scare quotes", though the old way reads better, if it not misunderstood. As to the second part, I agree with ElKevbo. I don't see how he reads the criticisms as reasons for the Republican defeat; it doesn't say that; it says his approval rating is a reason. Whether the things he is criticised for are major contributors to his low approval rating is an individual matter not addressed here. Opiner seems to be reading a lot more into these bits of info than anyone intended. This paragraph has survived over a month of scrutiny; I'm not saying it can't be improved, but major changes should not be so one-sided. Dicklyon 05:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be a source. And this should be representative to avoid undue weight. Its not that all of this is untrue but its reading like a criticism. Order is also important.

Why is it saying "he was president when 9/11 attacks occur"? We already know from the dates before. Whats it trying to say? Example if I add, "He was president when 9/11 attacks, planned during Clinton administration, occurred?" Still true but only a fool cant see the intent for the new clause. Just like only a fool cant see why its saying 'He was president' even though we already know this. Instead of adding this kind of writing in the other equally bad direction Im asking to eliminate it. Maybe you dont even know its being done. Lots of people hate Bush and even the neutral attempts are negative. Hey though Im doing the same thing for Germany and Japan on World War II. Its not endorsing.Opiner 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "president when 9/11..." sentence to one I think reads better. In regards to the "war president" quote, as it stands now it feels tacked on - it doesn't fit in with the sentence or even the paragraph in which it is placed. The previous wording was much better, and I don't see how it was a "scare quote" Maybe a little more clarity on the context in which he said it would clear up this argument (specifically that he said he was thrust into this position... I also seem to recall him saying that he didn't want to have to be a war president). Mbc362 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

'A self-described war president'. One, Why is it needed before saying he was reelected? Two, anyone denying he is a war president if this has a meaning? Why the quote except one reason to show insight into his self concept which shouldnt come before facts like reelection. Why I think its not neutral? Look anyone familiar with America politic dialogue knows this idea. War is a pretext to grab power or take voters eye off the real ball. Thats the staple for decades at least and a big one against Bush. Saying 'self-described' is suggesting this idea. Also saying hes a war president as in one who likes doing war instead of what he meant a president in a war. Maybe say later in article, Bush thinks this way about his presidency. Why here though and why so important to edit-war to keep it? It makes me think maybe someone seeing exactly what Im seeing and wants to keep it that way.Opiner 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In an election year, Bush described himself as a war president; it was obviously relevant to the election, whether key to his re-election or not; mentioning it, as Bush did, is not POV or biased. The quotation marks are to mark what he said; omitting them might work, given the "self-described" there already. Dicklyon 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just accept that it can sound a certain way to other readers and think of way to accomodate instead of edit war? Its biased even if youre not aware. Youre saying youre not aware of political discourse Im referring or just not answer? No reason it should be where it is is there?Opiner 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your points. It seems to me that this phrase that was in the article for well over a month and caused no trouble was not being misinterpreted. It matter-of-factly points out that Bush was a war president when re-elected, and cites Bush saying so of himself in case anyone thought it was a someone else's characterization. Dicklyon 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The war was a central issue during the 04' election. It, and the war in Afghanistan, are central issues to his presidency. The quote gives the readers a quick insight into both him and the election. The introductory paragraph(s) should do just that - give a brief summary of the subject to be expanded upon later. However, I do agree that it doesn't exactly convey his message; if you can find a better way to phrase it, please share it with us. Lastly, please don't accuse other editors of trying to instill bias in this article just because they don't see eye to eye with you. Mbc362 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They accuse me first saying my changes are 'one-sided'. again since Dickylon saying hes not following my points. Theres a wellknown idea of the opposition saying the war is being misused as a powergrab or political opportunity. 'Self described "war president"' its inviting reader to take this skepticism approach.Opiner 23:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you edits certainly were one-sided. You want to suppress the mention of the war just because some people might use it as a part of a biased argument? That's what I don't follow. But I'm trying to address your issue with the possible misinterpretation of the quote as "scare quotes". So I took out the quote marks. Is that better? Dicklyon 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No the war is very important central fact of the presidency. Its big reason why he won 2004 and why GOP lost 2006. Im only opposing the skepticism approach. America is in a war and hes the president of America. Its not 'self-described.' Ill look again later okay. Thanks for considering.Opiner 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

He has described himself as "a war president," however your latest edits assuaged my concerns. I don't see any problems with it in its current form. Thanks Opiner. Mbc362 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a side note, links to other wikipedia articles should not be used as a reference. I re-added the links to the 1824, 1876 and 1888 elections in the text. Mbc362 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK Mbc362 I think youre seeing my points and what Im trying to do? But Dickylon youre writing 'You want to suppress the mention of the war just because some people might use it as a part of a biased argument?' then when I rewrite with full prominent mention of war you still revert your 'self-decribed.' Earlier reasons no longer are applying so now why?Opiner 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What I think needs to be emphasized with this sentence is Bush's belief (and his critics') that the wars are central issues to his presidency/elections without implying that he is a warmonger. While I personally see nothing wrong with having the quote in the introduction, I don't think its inclusion (nor its exclusion) are absolutely necessary. Mbc362 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What I think is important is that Bush described himself as a war president in an election year, and it was a relevant factor in his re-election. The concept of "war president" has nothing to do with war-mongering; it just means he's the incumbent in a time of war, which is something that affects voter thinking. But the interpretation can be left to the reader; it's just a way that Bush characterized himself. Dicklyon 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Right thats all it means. WE already know there is the war going on and my rewrite says this was made the main issue of election SO whats the problem? He said that sure but that doesnt answer why you put it where and how you put it does it? Which I guess youre not gonna answer.Opiner 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner says it "gotta go", but I put it back. It's just a fact that Bush was re-elected as self-described war president. Dicklyon 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

YOure just going to pretend you dont hear anything Im talking about? And edit war with the popups.Opiner 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You guessed I wasn't going to answer, but sorry, somehow I missed that latest comment of yours. You're questioning why I put it where; in fact, it wasn't me; it was there for over a month; I've explained the logic of it. What I don't get is why it bothers you. You mentioned the "scare quotes", so I took care of that. I just makes a lot of sense to say that he was re-elected as a war president, since that's how he characterized himself during the election year. Where else would it make sense? Dicklyon 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interrupt but I'm afraid I don't understand why the quotation marks were removed. It's not an editorial decision to add the quotation marks (i.e. they're not scare quotes). It's a direct quote and thus quotation marks are necessary. --ElKevbo 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The quote is good to include but somewhere else in the article.Opiner 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it without the quotes to avoid the possible misinterpretation. The phrase "self-decribed war president" is still correct as a non-quote but an attribution. I'm OK with it either way, but was trying to address Opiner's original complaint about how he interpreted it. I'll put it back, pending someone finding a better place to say he was re-elected as a war president. Dicklyon 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the part that seems POV to me is where it says what "were made the central issues" in the campaign. The passive voice here ("were made") is a weasel-word way of avoiding saying who made them the central issues; if they were the central issues, a reference to who decided that would be appropriate, and it should say they "were", not "were made". Or say who made them. Dicklyon 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the paragraph above the one in question it states when the Iraq war started, so I think its already clear that in the following election he was reelected as a "war president." It seems to me like its just stating the obvious. Also, if you are going to include the quote, I think there should be quotation marks around it since those are the exact words he used to describe himself. In regards to "were made central issues" line, both Bush and Kerry talked about it being a central issue to the election (the reference for the quote I think is also an acceptable reference for this claim, however I don't have a reference for Kerry at the moment). Mbc362 23:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(Lengthy off topic comment removed. It can be found here if needed. AuburnPilot^talk 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Simply put: I disagree with this information being removed. It is factual, referenced, and an important part of Bush's view of himself. I fail to see the NPOV issue. Let's put an end to this revert war. AuburnPilot^talk; 05:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone explain why it has to be where it is. I gave some theory to why its there NOT why its in the article but in that clause.Its strange to say 'Auburn, a self-described "Wikipedia editor,' then finish my sentence. If I write that and you ask me why then I find a quote where you said youre a 'wikipedia editor' wouldnt you agree I havent really answered your question?Opiner 06:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a lame straw-man; if being a wikipedia editor is relevant to the rest of the sentence, it might make sense; otherwise you just create a non-sequitur. As I mentioned several times, being a war president was relevant to Bush's re-election, which is why it is where it is (or you could search the history, find out who added it originally, and ask him if I'm right in interpreting that that's why it's there). If you doubt the relevance, say so and I'll provide books and articles that make that point. Dicklyon 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any NPOV problem either, I just think it could be written better. The reader should already be aware that his reelection occurred during wartime, so I don't think saying self-described "war president" really adds much. Mbc362 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them."

I think more of the quote needs to be included than just "I'm a war president" to accurately portray Bush's mindset. Mbc362 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the phrase "self described war president" is causing this much controversy and discussion, then it simply cannot fit with the NPOV rule. While there may or may not be proper justification, I think we should all be impartial and not let our political views get in the way of this service--Wikipedia is not a pulpit for expressing your views directly or indirectly. If a phrase causes this much anger, it should be ommitted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.252 (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

re: WAR PRESIDENT... Kurt Vonnegut said it was like calling yourself a syphillis president. Wikipedia is not militaristic and shouldn't glorify warfare. So I think quotes are not sufficient to clarify the point that a WAR PRESIDENT is a detestable thing and a historical standard only amongst criminal rulers. 124.197.27.190 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"self described" obviously implies bias and I don't know why this is so difficult for some people to see. A war president is what he is, many others have also described him as such, before and after he did. It is relevant to state that being president during a time of war was helpful to his re-election in 2004. So why not word exactly that way?

References

^ "Transcript for Feb. 8th". MSNBC. 2004-02-08. Retrieved 2006-09-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Good Article

What about nominating this article as good one? -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipediawanna Talk? 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be successful (this article is way too unstable) but you're welcome to try! --ElKevbo 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems Walter Humala has been indefinitely blocked. As far as a good article goes, I'd say it's much closer to meeting the criteria of GA than featured article. It shouldn't be too hard to maintain a good article on a US President; especially the current US President. With Walter Humala's block, I'll review the criteria and see how this article's chances look. AuburnPilot^talk 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Last year this article was a pretty terrible piece of hagiography. As of today, it really is a good article.

24.59.97.162 06:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Disaster

The Global Warming disaster should be cited as controversies at top of the article or added to criticisms. The Bush admin has finally recognized Global Warming "because sea ice is melting" as a threat to Polar Bears and will have to limit green house gasses on American industries one they are an endangered species. To little too late.
By Rich 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Polar Bears Proposed for U.S. 'Endangered Species List' National Geographic Greenland ice-melt 'speeding up' BBC News

Those articles don't really talk about or criticize Bush. Perhaps you can find sources that do, for example on his flip on considering carbon dioxide to be a pollutant to be regulated. Find such sources, and then you can add to the criticisms section. Dicklyon 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if some larger movement were to grow as a reaction to this, then it might be justified for inclusion in an article specifically about Bush. E.g. a noteworthy protest movement is born; some historically significant multi-lateral treaty is created; Dick Cheney commits seppuku.... If something like that happens as a result of this, then it makes sense to refer to it.

Another reference to Bush finally accepting that global warming is real is his recent (as of January 2007) "...and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change." This quote was taken from yahoo news. 8:53 pm 23 January 2007 (when the user posted this) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/state_of_union the quote is near the 26th paragraph

We're following the same CO2 rules that we did under Clinton. We're all still driving gasoline-burning cars without any additional tax on emissions. This is not a Bush-specific issue.--Loodog 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*Discussion re new Environmental section/Global Warming subsection

(subheading being added 1/26/07 to distinguish earlier debate from discussion that started this week about new material-JLSWiki 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

After reading all that was here as of a few days ago, I added the Environmental Policy/Global Warming subsection to the Domestic Policy section. Today I updated it with regard to the 2007 State of the Union Address as per one of the more recent suggestions above. I have done so with the above comments and with the following principles in mind: 1) the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on neutrality and on biographical articles must be followed (if you think I have not, read on, and then let's discuss), 2) this article should have a section on his environmental policy and the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and the global warming issue are the central issues environmental issues occurring during his presidency (I dont presently have the time or knowledge to add other facets such as Clean Air or Clear Skies, but someone should, and I would not be against changing this then to an Environmental Policy subsecttion with Global Warming as a first sub-subsection and other things after that), 3) this article is not the place for a full blown discussion and debate about global warming but rather should include factual information about Bush and global warming. Thanks in advance for thoughtful and objective consideration of this.-JLSWiki 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that it is the Senate that ratifies treaties, not the President. Wouldn't it also be fair to note that other nations have rejected Kyoto . . . Canada and Australia to name a few. Wouldn't it also be fair to note the significance of the developing world's exclusion from the protocol in light of their rapidly growing share of the CO2 output. I'm sure that when China and India surpass the CO2 output of the United States that this will be highlighted in this article.216.215.144.201 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)jawnybnsc

To JLSWiki, overall I liked your additions but I felt that some of it had a slight POV and OR feel about them. I did a slight rewording and hopefully fixed this. Tell me what you think about it.
To 216.215.144.201, thank you, but we are already aware that the senate ratifies treaties. Bush rejected the treaty, not the senate. As this is an article about Bush and his policies, Canada's, Australia's, etc's reaction to the Kyoto Protocols are not really relevant and do not need to be included.

--Mbc362 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mbc, thanks. Your edits are an improvement (and thanks for not mentioning having to fix my spelling - is there a spell checker on this thing I am not seeing). The only edit you made that concerns me is the removal of the introduction I had to the 2007 SOTU piece as there was anticipation last week that he was going to go further than he did, and discussion afterwards as to whether or not he was actually now accepting the connection between GW and human activity - which I thought was the necessary context for his statement. Maybe not, or maybe not without a specific cite (I thought that was in one of the cites but if not you are good to hold that context out for now.)--JLSWiki 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it felt too much like commentary, not specific facts or even criticism. If you can find a cite for it, I guess it could be reinserted but it would probably have to be reworded slightly. I'm using Firefox, which has a spell checker for user's text input.--Mbc362 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Only Congress has the power to ratify treaties. The President can only sign treaties that have been ratified and NO CONGRESS has ever ratified Kyoto. If you want to research the topic further you can see the Byrd-Hagel Senate Resolution (S. Res. 98) 105th Congress, 1st Session.70.153.19.133 05:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)jawnybnsc

I am not mistaken; Presidents negotiate treaties (not congress). Then the treaty is then sent to the senate to be ratified, after which the president signs it. Bush has refused to resubmit it to congress for ratification, therefore rejecting it. --Mbc362 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Mbc is right and since I wrote this, let me respond to this series of comments: The point of the article is what bush has done and not done with enough context to make it understandable and enough pointers for the reader to know where to go to learn more. All the controversy and background and detail about Kyoto belongs in its article. (I thought the point about the US being the largest emitter might be helpful context (but I put it in parens because it was so indirect) but I agree with Mbc's removal if that appeases the others.) Kyoto was a work in progress when Bush came into office, Clinton/Gore had championed it, but to get it through congress they were working on making it better. It became effective in 2005. In 2001 Bush announced that he would not support it/would not send it to Congress for ratification, and withdrew US efforts to negotatiate a satisfactory treaty for more countries to sign. That was a very significant move and deserves this brief mention in his article, in a somewhat larger mention of Global Warming in his Environmental Policy section. All are welcome to improve it.

I'm looking for the entry in your article on President Clinton that discusses his failure to submit Kyoto for ratification. Can you point me to it?70.153.19.133 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)jawnybnsc

If you have a problem with Clinton's page, you need to discuss it on that talk page, not here.--Mbc362 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And it is not my Clinton page (I haven't even read it), or Mbc's Clinton page; its yours/ours/everybody's -- just make sure any changes you make there are NPOV -- and see comments above as well.-JLSWiki 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an acknowledgment of Global Climate Change from President Bush in June of 2001:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

So essentially, almost from the beginning of his presidency, President Bush has acknowledged Global Climate Change. There may be disagreement on causes and what to do about it, but it appears to me that Bush has never been in denial about it. I suppose he may have contradicted himself, but in looking at the official statements and positions of this administration, I don't see any such evidence. Once again, this is your invitation to CLEAN IT UP and to examine your OBVIOUS BIASES.216.215.144.201 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)jawnybnsc

I guess you are talking to me, but please don't talk in all caps, I am not blind and I have a headache. And please do not question my good faith in trying to keep this accurate and NPOV. The first point I originally put in was the Kyoto turnaround. Notwithstanding some attempted discussion above, that is a known fact, and the only qeustion is how much of Bush's explanation do you put in - I put in his key points, a POV pushing editor would not have done so. The second thing I added, related to that, was the ongoing controversy over his acceptance/lack thereof on the global warming science - the existence of this controversy is not controversial. (Look at the speech you cited and the other references and see how much he says we don't know or that is in debate.) I just made some minor changes that might appease you. Apart from that, you are free to improve this section as you wish and as good faith editors will allow.-JLSWiki 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To 216.215.144.201: please read WP:CIVIL. It is never a good idea to go around accusing others of having "obvious biases". Remember, always assume good faith.
To JLSWiki: I added in some material about the marine reserve he created back in 2006. Right now the section appears to only have material dealing with Global Warming and the stuff I just added. I'm trying to come up with some other policies of his in regards to the environment but I can't seem to think of any. Any thoughts?

--Mbc362 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the obvious one is the Clear Skies initiative and the followup to the Clean Air law. I started to work on that a few days ago but got swamped on other things so go for it if you have time.-JLSWiki 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The section "Environmental Policy/Global Warming" is entirely too long on the main page. It should be more terse. I suggest someone who's experienced with the topic ship much of it off to Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration#Environment. That is where the main focus of the topic should be. By no means am I trying to reduce criticism or the significance of the subject. It's just that we have to make sure the main page George W. Bush is manageable and not too lengthy. I also suggest adding a link at the top of the section "Environmental Policy/Global Warming" which directs to here. That way we can maintain a manageable main page while providing a link for people who are more interested in that topic. ~ Rollo44 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) In fact, that section should focus mainly on how the person George W. Bush feels about environmental concerns. And then briefly outline how his preferences have been executed in policy. It shouldn't be very long. Most of the ins-and-outs of his policy should go to the section in Domestic policy. ~ Rollo44 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to explain how Bush "feels about environmental concerns," as he (and basically all politicians) is prone to making contradictory statements about his beliefs depending on who the audience is, except to list his specific policies in this area. Specifically what parts of the section do you think need to be parred down, or is it just the entire section in general?--Mbc362 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollo44, I respect your goal of keeping the length of this article manageable, but I think perhaps your suggestions go too far in places. This article is necessarily going to cover the Bush presidency (not just what the man thinks, but what he and his administration says and does as well). While there may and should be sub/sister articles for greater depth of detail and information in each major area, this main article should cover all major aspects of his and any presidency. Under Environmental Policy, clearly the global warming controversy, the Clear Skies initiative, and perhaps one or two other things should be referenced, and must be referenced with enough context to A) be informative and point the reader to where to go for more information, B) be accurate, and C) be NPOV. There are times you cannot just say something simple in one sentance, without violating one of those three principles or other WP policies. Please keep all this in mind before you, or you suggest others, remove or move the work of others. Thank you.-JLSWiki 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never, ever, suggest the removal of information. Merely more optimal organization of that information. I definitely agree with you Mbc362 that what comes out of politicians' mouths is hardly representative of their actions, so in that sense I agree the section should focus on policy. JLSWiki, I definitely understand your "with enough context" remark. It's only my opinion that the section is too long for the main page, not a serious issue. ~ Rollo44 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Take no offense - I think all your edits have been good here recently, I am more concerned that others might take your comments as license to act more rashly. We're good from my perspective-JLSWiki 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mid-Term Election Description

As it currently reads, the sentence describing the mid-term elections:

"It was one of the major reasons for what Bush called the " thumpin' " of the Republican Party in November 2006 mid-term elections."

After visiting the cited web site, not once does it use the slang " thumpin' " instead of "thumping." This seems to be a subtle stab at Bush's intelligence or perceived accent. The citation seems fine, but I'm not sure why the direct quote "thumping" is even necessary.

Perhaps an alternate sentence could be used without using a direct quote:

"Bush feels his lower approval ratings may have contributed to Republican losses in the 2006 Mid-Term elections."

Or something of this nature. Mshrop 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Bush did make a point to say "thumpin[g]." No question. But I agree that the word should be spelled properly. There's no real reason to start spelling people's spoken words phonetically. Or is there? Hmm. I don't know. That's a tough one. But I think because the phonetic rendition isn't sourced directly, and because it would be awkward to source it directly without a ridiculously expansive exposition of such a trivial little thing, I think it should probably be spelled correctly. That is, I think it's OK to mention Bush's reference to a thumping, but I think you have to spell thumping with a G. --Skidoo 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling correction made. If anyone else agrees that a re-write of the sentence mentioned above would improve the quality of the article then be sure to say so. Mshrop 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it before reading this discussion; my bad. Still, I like "thumpin", being a Texas boy myself. What do y'all think? Dicklyon

I think you're not from Texas. Governor 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not clear who you're addressing. I'm from El Paso, TX. Dicklyon 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to reflect the wording of the source. If the site says "thumping" so should the article.--Mbc362 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources for "thumpin'" are not too hard to find: [2] [3]. But we should add the apostrophe. Dicklyon 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Change it and use a source that quotes it as "thumpin'"--Mbc362 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did it. Apostrophe was there already; it's just hard to see. I used the ref with the specific quote attribution. Dicklyon 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With the source it's better. I still feel that rewriting the sentence without any form of "thumpin"/"thumping" would improve the quality of the article. What does everyone else think? Mshrop 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

SEC / Harken

This line needs a source:

"Additionaly, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, but as President, Bush has refused to allow the SEC to release the full report."

It's not sourced in the detail article either. I'm going to try to remember to excise it in a couple of days if no one can come up with a source. --Skidoo 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find a source a little while back and failed. ~~Remove it immediately,~~ if a source is found it can be re-added later--Mbc362 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed it myself--Mbc362 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "President Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to open the full file on his investigation" from the Washington Post? [4] Dicklyon 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I guess my previous search wasn't as thorough as I had thought. I re-inserted the content and added the citation.--Mbc362 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested deletion on Iraq

I am a "newcomer" so I admit to some trepidation in writing this, but please know that I have read the guidelines and policies (including on not biting newcomers, which emboldened me) and that I am a firm believer in Wikipedia's neutrality principles. With that said, I would recommend the deletion of the following: "Central Intelligence Agency reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material, had not properly accounted for Iraqi biological weapons and chemical weapons material in violation of U.N. sanctions, and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions.[83]" First, without further context, and written so vaguely and ambiguously, this sentence is misleading. The cited report (singular) is one declassified and edited version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate put together by the CIA at the Administration’s request. Other versions and reports provided greater emphasis to the uncertainty and dissent on these and other fronts. See, e.g. The National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm); see also Judis, John B. and Ackerman, Spencer, “The Selling of the Iraq War”, The New Republic, June 2003 (and references cited therein). Even the cited report does not support the statement that “[CIA] reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material”. The only strained legitimacy to the citation would be to read “nuclear material” here to mean manufacturing equipment (and even there the support would be tenuous) as opposed to the common understanding of “material” referring to fissile material, namely uranium. Read in this context, the article will mislead readers into believing that CIA provided support for the statements of President Bush and others in the administration regarding Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. I find it highly suspect that the article about President Bush would contain this statement about the content of CIA reports, and not mention his 2003 State of the Union speech's infamous "16 words” (which any student of his presidency should know about) in which he attributed the uranium procurement evidence to British intelligence, precisely because the CIA had told the administration in October of 2002 that the uranium procurement story was highly dubious – precisely the opposite of the implication of the quoted sentence in the article. Without going even deeper into the history and terminology of WMD reporting, this subject is far to complex to be treated in such a glossary fashion as has been done here. A more accurate and in depth discussion of the topic belongs in the Iraq War article. If this sentance stays in the article, and maybe even if it does not, the article should include more of the facts about President Bush's own words and actions leading up the Iraq War, and more importantly, I believe this portion of the article violates the Wikipedia neutrality principle. JLSWiki 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as necessarily non-neutral, just a section that hasn't been adequately expanded. The other reports that you mention have great relevance to this article and should be included as well. Welcome to Wikipedia!--Mbc362 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There are two concerns - neutrality and accuracy. Being new to Wikipedia, and understanding this is a sensitive topic and page, I did not want to be too presumptuous, or waste a lot of time, drafting an edit that not only fixes the quoted sentance but expands the section. I am not sure who all the administrators are, but if encouraged I would be happy to take on such a task. In the meantime, for the reasons stated above, I do think they need to delete this sentance, for accuracy at the least: "Central Intelligence Agency reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material, had not properly accounted for Iraqi biological weapons and chemical weapons material in violation of U.N. sanctions, and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions.[83]" JLSWiki 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, please be aware that you will be allowed to edit this article yourself a few days after you registered. It's protected from editing only by brand new and anonymous editors. In that vein, I would humbly suggest that you remove the {{Editprotected}} template, wait a few more days, and make the edit yourself. I don't see this as an edit that must be made quickly and I think you should be the one who makes the edit.

Second, please feel free to jump in and make both suggestions and edits to this and any other article! You're right that this is a very visible, high-traffic, and sometimes contentious page but please don't let that put you off in any way.

Finally, I think your specific suggestions and observations are good. The only concern I have, and it's more of a general concern with any edit that adds material to this article, is that there may be a more appropriate article. I *think* you're okay with what you have suggested but we must be very cognizant of the length of this article and how it continues to grow. --ElKevbo 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and encouragement, ElKevbo. I hope I just removed the template. I will do as you suggest, and yes I understand your last point, which is why I thought the CIA assertion should be deleted rather than expanded into a whole dissertation on WMD on the Pres. Bush page. JLSWiki 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think a simple sentence noting that not all CIA reports were so certain of Saddam's violations would be required for this article; a more in depth analysis placed on the Iraq War page perhaps? There were multiple reports stating what the sentence in question says, so I don't think it should be removed. Building on what ElKevbo said, be bold! Wikipedia needs new users like you to revise old articles.--Mbc362 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not go in depth on the pre-war WMD intelligence. If anything, the article on President Bush should focus more on his actions (and words) in this regard given the importance of his decision to go to war with Iraq to his presidency. As per my first post however, I think if this sentance is to remain, at least this clause needs to be corrected: "tried to acquire nuclear material". I believe that is innaccurate vis-a-vis CIA reporting at the time, I am unaware of a CIA report (including the one cited in the article at note 83) reaching that conclusion, and in fact in 2002 the CIA was instrumental in debunking that intelligence that was emanating out of Europe (George Tenet forced the White House to remove the assertion from the President's key speech in October 2002 in Cincinnati). You are right that the cited report, and others probably, can support the rest of the sentance (chemical/biological violations; missile range violation), and I would plan on leaving that corrected sentance and adding a sentance or two of context. JLSWiki 13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is both true and false. There was a report detailing Saddam's attempts to buy yellow cake material from Niger that few in the CIA believed (it later turned out to be false). However, it inexplicably made it into the classified NIE given to Bush right before his administration made the case for war. (The CIA usually spends several months to years to prepare an NIE on a subject, for this one the CIA was given two weeks).--Mbc362 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no -- not being flip, its a complicated subject; you obviously know a lot about it as well, and perhaps the best thing is for me to take a stab at the editing I have in mind later this week and for you then to check my accuracy. My understanding of the timeline (not that all of this belongs in this article) is that the assertions came out of Italy's and Britain's intelligence agencies, the CIA investigated in 2002 (Cheney and then Joe Wilson, etc. etc.) and found the allegations dubious, but then, as you said, they inexplicably found their way into the classified version of the 10/1/02 NIE with some caveats (not the version cited in this article); however, in two memos and in direct communication with the White House over the next several days, the CIA and Tenet told the White House not to rely on those allegations as they were dubious, the White House removed the allegation from the Cincinnati speech of 10/02 (and they never appeared in Powell's case for war to the UN); but it somehow made its way into the January 2003 State of the Union speech (citing British intelligence and not the CIA); which the administration later admitted was a mistake, with both Tenet and then Stephen Hadley falling on their swords, AND the White House stating that Bush never read the NIE. Given all of that, I hope you can see why I originally felt that the statement in the Bush article ("Central Intelligence Agency reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material...") is so vague and out of context so as to be innaccurate or misleading; to the point of lacking neutrality in that it seems to support the POV of the President's defenders who try to put all the blame on the CIA. I apologize for the length of these posts but (1) I think this is helpful to fleshing out the accurate facts (jogging memories too) before editing and (2) I respect the opinions of more experienced editors like yourself and ElKevbo. --JLSWiki 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1)Be bold in your editing, however make sure it is accurate. Make the changes you feel are necessary; if someone disagrees with you they can discuss here as well.

2)I would find it extremely disturbing if Bush had not actually read the NIE. Do you have a source for this?

3)The original statement is technically correct, if not properly sourced; there were reports from the CIA that said this. However, there were also reports coming from the CIA that stated the exact opposite, or at that we had no evidence of it. The text in the article should reflect this.

4)There is no need to apologize for your posts; I find your willingness to discuss needed changes and earnest effort to follow Wikipedia policy most refreshing--Mbc362 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1)OK

2)It is I guess and I will find a reference for you, but basically, when the disputes about the uranium and the aluminum tubes came out in 2003, the WH used this to say Bush was unaware of the disputes; and then again last year this came up when it was disclosed that Bush got a 1 page summary of the report that did at least have the doubts about the aluminum tubes.

3) I dont think we disagree, you have really helped, and I will try to reflect that when I get around to doing this, soon I hope.

4) ok and thanks...--JLSWiki 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As another passerby i just read the introductory section, which states Bush invaded Iraq because it was in possession of WMD. The truth of this is not disputed in the introduction, which therefore gives the impression that Bush was correct. This is giving a false impression to a reader. If it is intended to read that he mistakenly believed this, therefore invaded, then it needs wording more clearly. I am not sure that even this would be accurate, it seems increasingly clear that the official reason was not believed by anyone. Sandpiper 08:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're referring to the article's introduction or the Iraq subsection introduction, but in both cases it says that Bush claimed Iraq possessed WMD, not that it actually had WMD. In the same vein as your comment however, I noticed that in the Iraq subsection is states, "The Bush Administration was assailed in subsequent months following the report of the Iraq Survey Group, which, apart from a few stockpiles, did not find the large quantities of weapons that the regime was believed to possess." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the US did not find any stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. They found roughly 200-400 munitions that contained mustard gas left over from the Iran-Iraq War. Contrary to what Rick Santorum claimed, these were not the WMDs the US claimed Iraq had (at least according to the DoD, CIA and White house). They were found separately, not in "stock piles", spread around the entire country. Unless my memory has failed me and this did indeed occur, I think that comment needs to be removed. If we fix these sentences in question, I think we'll address your problem as well.--Mbc362 03:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Refrence for the assasination

Here is a CNN article regarding the grenade...although it is not commonly called an assasination attempt, there was a grenade thrown. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/11/georgia.grenade/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.240.159.77 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I added it to the article. Thanks!--Mbc362 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the Education Section

George and Laura Bush are especially supportive Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, regarding her policy statements pertaining to No Child Left Behind. Spellings, on PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, called states' resistance to the No Child Left Behind Act the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I think it's regrettable, frankly", Spellings said, when the achievement gap between minority and Anglo kids is quite large in many urban areas. And I think it's unfortunate for those families and those students that they are trying to find a loophole to get out of the law as opposed to attending to the needs of those kids. That’s the notion, the soft bigotry of low expectations, as the president calls it, that No Child Left Behind rejects."

Spellings further said, The way our public school systems are structured, currently states don't recognize accrediting agencies such as the International Association of Schools and Colleges for the purpose of funding. That means that we are rather confined to the six regional associations which accredit schools based on pre-planned, management controlled offerings instead of looking to the student first, and determining what that student's needs are; what his or her interests, aptitudes, skill levels, learning style and emotional maturity may be. By accrediting and funding only so called top-down schools without reference to a student's individuality, we have very little chance of correcting imbalances.In many urban centers, for example, only 29% of high school freshman will graduate four years later. That is totally unacceptable from my standpoint, and it is something that would be corrected if the I.A.S.C. format for accrediting schools were recognized. I haven't been able to get that done during my tenure, however, because of the powerful vested interests involved. And, it would be something that the President would be interested in discussing during the next two years."71.142.218.202 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This material sounds like it might belong in Spellings' article or the NCLB article instead of this one. --ElKevbo 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true of all this material it would seem. Spellings statements in this regard (about the status and prospects of the NCLB law at this particular point in time) cannot possibly deserve so much proportional space in this enduring encyclopedia article on President Bush. Moreover, this should not be added to this article or to the NCLB article without some effort at balance to make it NPOV by including the opposing POV from the states (many republican and democratic governers) and democrats. In the Spellings article it might be OK as is.--JLSWiki 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this quote is a hoax, try googling for "International Association of Schools and Colleges". Why would spellings talk up an organization that doesn't seem to exist outside of it's own website? Pete.Hurd 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion - should the [[Template:War on Terrorism]] be included in this article?

If yes, why? Sfacets 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about, if yes or no, why?--Looper5920 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about you detail your reasons on why you reverted it's removal?

Why is this template only found on this biographical article and not on others? There is no mention of GWB on the template, whereas all the articles mentioned carry the template. Sfacets 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, why don't you explain your decision to arbitrarily remove a template that has been on this page for months now.--Looper5920 12:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just have. Sfacets 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then it will be decided by consensus votes vice unilateral deletion.--Looper5920 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC

I believe the War on Terrorism template should definitely be included on this page. It encompasses the central issue(s) and events of his presidency. To ignore that does not make sense. President Bush is the central figure in the War on Terrorism as ecompassed by the template, more than bin Laden (although I think the template should be included on his bio as well). Any POV debate should be about what the "War on Terrorism" declared by his administration is and what it includes(i.e. whether the template itself with its contents is NPOV is a different issue which I assume has been and is debated elsewhere), but if there is a War on Terrorism (and then a template), it is his war more than than anyone's. In other words, President Bush himself has defined it broadly and expanded it to include the war in Iraq and other initiatives - all referenced in that template. This is clearly explanation enough for why it might be included here and not on other bios. I don't know why, structurally, there is no link to GWB on the template (of course there are no links to any individuals' articles) but I am not sure why that matters here. Put simply, if one wants to understand President Bush's place in history, one needs to understand the "War on Terrorism" and therefore his Wikipedia article should facilitate that understanding.--JLSWiki 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I say remove it, primarily because it's mostly used on topics solely about the War on Terrorism, (and I don't think that should change), but also because the bottom of the article is just getting silly. Once you get to the point where an article includes six templates at the bottom (excluding persondata, sisterlinks, and successionboxes), you just have to ask, which of these is really relevant and useful? This one isn't, so let's just remove and kick the ugliness down a notch. Picaroon 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment about cluttering the botom of articles with boxes is well taken, but it doesn't look too bad. There is a huge section before it already cluttering the bottom, which is the references. If this was removed for reasons of clutter, then the references section ought to go as well. I don't know what the internal US view of the Bush presidency is, but from the UK, it is all about the war on terrorism. He started the war. He made it a major campaign issue. It has gone badly wrong, and as a result has destroyed his public popularity. Unlike Blair, he had no prospects for a further term to loose, but for both men it has permanently altered what will be remembered about them in history. Bushes war did destroy Blair, led to his impending fall from office, and skuppered his real chance to have become Britains longest serving prime minister. Sandpiper 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Invasion

The word "invasion" comes off as negative to me; I think that any use of the phrase "invasion of Iraq" should be changed to "liberation of Iraq". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.252 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Not sure if you are serious...if not, please note that the Talk pages are not really for humor or at least not subtle sarcasm which is dangerous in this forum...if you are serious, I apologize, but your suggested change is a real POV problem unless I am missing the context.JLSWiki 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to whitewash Bush's policies, nor match his rhetoric. While you might see "invasion" as unnecessarily POV against Bush, "liberation" would certainly be POV for Bush. The UN considers the war an invasion. Only 9% of Iraqis consider the US to be "liberators." By almost all definitions of the word (except for the Bush Administration's), the war was an invasion of a sovereign country. I see no reason to change it.--Mbc362 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely serious, and your apology is accepted. I'll concede that if "invasion" is POV against Bush, "liberation" is POV for Bush. We would then need to find a neutral phrase for replacement. When Saddam was ousted, millions of oppressed Iraqis were liberated from tyrannical rule. People who were murdered by the thousands no longer had to fear their own government. The genocide by the Iraqi government ended. If this isn't liberation, then tell me what is. . .because of the "invasion of Iraq," there is now electricity in areas of the country that were formerly dark, there's running water where there once was none, and schools are being built so Iraqi boys and girls (thats right, boys AND girls) can become educated and one day grow to be powerful world leaders. You may not agree with the president, but there's no denying that Iraq is much better off now then it was 5 years ago--thus, its been liberated. Look past the CNN and Fox News talking points and find the real truth for yourself.

"People who were murdered by the thousands no longer had to fear their own government." -->Right, now they only have to fear the sunni insurgents and the shia death squads operating from within the government. Wait....

"there is now electricity in areas of the country that were formerly dark, there's running water where there once was none, and schools are being built so Iraqi boys and girls (thats right, boys AND girls) can become educated and one day grow to be powerful world leaders." -->The areas were formerly dark, had no running water and no schools because the infrastructure was destroyed during the initial bombings of the war. Iraq was not a third world country before the US invaded. I suggest you do some research about Saddam's social/economic programs, such as here (note the part about how "Hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqi men, women and children learned to read") or here.

I would disagree that Iraq is better off now than it was 5 years ago, and I believe the 1.6 million Iraqis who have fled the country since the start of the insurgency would also disagree. Ironically, the invasion page became a featured article a few days after your initial post. The introductory sentence is as follows: "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory, or altering the established government."--Mbc362 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we remember the purpose of a talk page? Please limit discussion to the article, not the article's subject. AuburnPilot^talk 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In no way is "invasion" POV against Bush. Invasion is a generic and neutral term with a clear definition that should not be controversial. Is the "invasion of Normandy" POV against the allies and for the Nazi's? No. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq resulted in true "liberation", just liberation from Sadaam but not from violence, liberation for Shiites but not Sunnis, etc., there was an invasion. Whether or not you think its "negative" (perhaps you are being too defensive) it is factual and accurate, and not POV.-JLSWiki 13:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd hazard that it is, perhaps, POV, considering how controversial this issue is right now. I won't step into the ring and pick a better term, but this is my own (libertarian) view. --Iriseyes 15:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian view? lol. Libertarianism has nothing to do with that, a true Libertarian would allow every side to say what they will. 67.84.46.162 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a difference between controversy and real controversy? If not, the value of consensus, Wikipedia and the meaning of its neutrality principle are far less than I thought.-JLSWiki 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Invasion is the correct word. --Lincoln F. Stern 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

plurality

Occasionally i have a look at this page to see what what has become of it. This time I started reading and noticed the word plurality. I'm an educated brit, but when I saw this i thought, 'what the hell does that mean, exactly'. OK, its blue linked the first time it appears, and maybe wiki seeks to force people to learn new words, but generally if I introduce a technical concept which is not going to be understood by even a well educated person, I would explain it as I go. There is a creeping tendency to include technical words into wiki when it is not necessary, and detracts from the general readability of articles.Sandpiper 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Plurality" is a normal word. If that's a problem for you, you are invited to use this version.
Sys Hax 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. There's no need to suggest someone use Simple Wikipedia just because a word is unfamiliar to them. Picaroon 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look out for Vandalism

I noticed a lot of people have thought it's ok to vandalize this article. Everyone needs to be mature. Everyone needs to look out for vandalism in this article. Make sure it follows the Neutral policy Mrld 13:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here. This page needs it's own anti-vandal bot ;) WBHoenig 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its vandalism or just people editing it to their version of how they feel the truth is about this man. I know I have several thoughts about him that I would LOVE to add to the article about him but anything I would post would probably be removed as 'vandalism'. In all fairness however, calling someone an idiot who actually is an idiot is not vandalism, its factual reporting of the truth and so to remove any such comment is censorship and not factual information. A section added to this article of some of his lovely speeches 'Bin Laden is either alive or he is dead', 'Bin Laden is either in Afghanistan or he has fled', etc. are all factual bits of information about him however I doubt they would survive on this board without being removed - that is censorship not neutrality. Nnila 9:42AM, 8 February 2007 (Sydney Time)

Georgia Incident

Just browsing the article, and noticed this. the sentence is a bit nonsensical, and surely it would be better to add a bit more information? the grammar suggests that the person has been mentioned before, which is not true. the only bit of information there is the exact distance from Bush that the grenade landed, but surely someone could find some more? id do it myself, but im a new user, so i dont have much that i can do right now on this page. anyone got any ideas about what to do? Hagger 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

I might be nit-picking, but I think this phrase needs rewording: "He was elected the 46th Governor of Texas in 1995, and remained there until 2000, when he chose to run for the office of president." I'm fairly certain that he chose to run for president well before 11 or so months prior to the election, probably years before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.252 (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

That's not a grammatical error, that's a semantic error. A grammatical error is the fact that "remained there" should be "remained in that position", as "there" is ambiguous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sys Hax (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that it is likely that as far back as 1980, he decided. This is only my opinion, but it is safe to say that since he was in the primaries in 1999 that he considered the office before 2000. Norwell ms 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kim Jong-Il - dictator?

I notice a reference to "North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il" in this article. Is this an acceptable NPOV term? We don't use it on his article, although I see there that he's not technically President either, so I'm not sure what a suitable one word term would be. -CarelessHair 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

calling that guy a dictator IS an objective view. Nobody in the world would dispute it.
Sys Hax 02:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not an objective term, and it doesn't matter who would dispute it. The term doesn't comply with neutral point of view. Picaroon 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While most, if not all, outside of the Korean communist party would call Kim Jong Il a dictator, a more NPOV term might be "North Korean leader" or "head of state." However, in the sense that dictator means "a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government," Kim Jong Il would indeed be a dictator. Xcountry99 01:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, although I see why we would want to stay with something else. Personally, I'd just say 'leader'. WBHoenig 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Something so simple

Ok, I have reverted Susanlesch's changes [5] again. The correct names for the people and the article titles are Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Changing Bill Clinton to William Clinton creates a link to a disambiguation page and is counterproductive. Just like Dick Cheney's article is Dick, not Richard, these links should remain as they are and have been. Common practice and WP:MOS situation here. AuburnPilot^talk 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stoner Redirects

"Stoner" redirects to this page. Vandalism! Damnit people I dislike the guy too but lets let the facts be facts!

I checked, I don't see anything like that. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

9-11

The phrase "Following news of a second collision, Bush remained with the class for seven minutes while they finished reading a story" really doesn't serve much of a purpose unless you describe the reason why Bush didn't jump up and run out of the room. . .As it stands, it actually serves no purpose, and confuses the paragraph--its pointless and should either be expanded on or removed. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.62 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

See below under "No Comment?"-JLSWiki 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing

Doing some house keeping here on the article--is there some odd reason why like 50% of the statements are unsourced *ON* a high profile BLP controlled article...? I just removed like 2-3 paragraphs that were tagged for some time and added more tags. F.F.McGurk 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a quickly-moving and heavily-edited page about a controversial political figure. It's going to be years before this article really slows down and starts to become stable. We do our best but it's no surprise that a lot of things slip by us. --ElKevbo 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I'll try to help out to keep the cruft out. F.F.McGurk 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better use of your time would be to find the citations yourself! I understand that you mean well, but, unless I'm mistaken, none of the material you removed was controversial nor was its accuracy in question and it really should not be removed so casually. Perhaps you should read WP:Ignore all rules. If the unsourced material is controversial, or its accuracy questionable, by all means remove it immediately, but otherwise please search for a citation yourself or bring it to the attention of other editors. In an article this long thats constantly changing, editors may miss the {{Fact}} tag. By the way, if you had followed the link to ISAF you would have seen that the material you removed was sourced there.--Mbc362 20:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

White House Press Corps

The White House Press Corps section is way too specific for an article like this; it spends multiple paragraphs focusing on one journalist and question. It needs to be thoroughly trimmed and then broadened in scope and substance. As of now it's probably POV. Joshdboz 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on Bush's sociopathy

Why have my edits been reversed? Are you administrators SO paranoid about the George W. Bush article that you just indiscriminately and compulsively go and revert edits that say negative things about George Bush that you think MIGHT by some SMALL CHANCE be subjective, providing a bogus or non-explanatory edit reason for such reversions?

I believe that I was as NPOV as was appropriate. I didn't say Bush WAS a sociopath, I was objective by saying "these are the things Bush did, and this evidence SUPPORTS the view that Bush is a sociopath."

If you feel that negative statements about Bush belong in one of the other linked articles or another article altogether, please tell me in that case. Otherwise, I suppose it's regrettable that commonplace vandalism has drowned out legitimate edits by conditioning page integrity enforcers to be too paranoid. It's no one's fault, though -- the vandalizers can't be blamed because vandalizing is so much fun, and the administrators can't be blamed for being conditioned by it.

I suppose I'll do some vandalizing now. Cya! --Ajo Mama 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it like this: If I were an American, I would vote for a ham sandwich in preference to GWB. And yet, AuburnPilot beat me to that revert by a few seconds. I can't believe you're trying to defend that nonsense. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it did not comply with WP:RS (along with WP:NPOV). There is nothing indiscriminate or compulsive about what I do.--Mbc362 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"these are the things Bush did, and this evidence SUPPORTS the view that Bush is a sociopath." Do you realize that the one website you cited was utterly unverifiable, biased, and non-mainstream? If you could find such an article in a scientific journal, than there might be room for it, but random websites do not count. Joshdboz 12:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a question. Why do we spend the time to humor idiots? --Looper5920 13:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question looper. Darkmiles22 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Restore?

Hi everyone,

I've recently noticed that User:Sasha best has removed several sections from this article. If you go into the page history, you would notice the missing sections. I had warned this user about this before, and so has User:Luna Santin. I don't know too much about George W. Bush, so I'm not going to restore the removed paragraphs until someone can verify that they are appropriate to the article. This is the section that User:Sasha best has deleted. Could you take a look at it? Thanks, lov e laughterlife♥^talk? 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Whitehouse Press Corps" bit probably does not belong in this article; as for the rest of it, I would say it probably should be restored.--Mbc362 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No Comment?

I believe I've made a legitimate argument in the section "9-11", but noone has responded, and the section in question is still up. . .is there any discussion on the subject? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.163.70 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I would recommend changing it to, Following news of a second collision, Bush remained with the class for several minutes before flying to air bases in Louisiana and Nebraska. He returned to Washington, D.C. in the late afternoon.

As it stands now, it looks like someone is trying to bring up the whole "seven minute" controversy without ever referring to criticism explicitly, but implicitly. I think it would be better to change it to the more neutral way above, and then talk about the controversy in a footnote. Joshdboz 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes. While I recently modified and moved this section, that portion had been there. I agree that what was there was really implicit criticism. To make that neutral I think we need to acknowledge it for what it is, which is what I tried to do with my edits just now. I also acknowledged Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 explicitly as criticism and controversial. I didnt want to say more, because then we get into a series of edits adding alternate POV points for and against, and I think the simple neutral acknowledgement is enough in this article.-JLSWiki 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While this new version is better, I don't think we need to mention Moore and his movie, unless we give both sides--while he may have been ciriticized by the left, his actions were explained: following the second crash, Bush was informed, and advised by his press secretary to not say anything yet. Because information was still coming in, and because Bush didn't want to alarm the children, he allowed the children to finish, was then brought into another room and briefed, and finally addressed the nation during a press conference that was already scheduled to take place at 9:30. . .while its true that some have criticized this, I don't think its vital information for a biography of Bush to include it, especially without giving both sides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.26 (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed the reference to Moore & Fahrenheit 9/11. While the movie is relevant, that reference does not belong under the "September 11, 2001" section.--Mbc362 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, my apologies 65.254.163.70 for taking so long to reply to your initial post. You did make a valid point and I appreciate your calling our attention to it.--Mbc362 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I still think that in order to be factual the article should at least mention the existence of criticism, so I have added this as a footnote. "Bush has since faced some criticism for remaining in the classroom for several minutes until the children finished reading their story instead of leaving immediately. See: Bush's 2001 reading of the book." Feel free to adjust as necessary. Joshdboz 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What you did was add it as a reference, not a footnote. I changed it to text.--Mbc362 14:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, I meant that I don't think that, since this is so specific, it should be in the text of the actual article. It should be at the bottom of the page as a sidenote. Joshdboz 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no section in this article for sidenotes; you had it placed in the references section which is not where something like that should go, so I placed it in the text. I left it in because both you and JLSWiki appeared to want it in. If the other editors do not want this included I would have no problem removing it. --Mbc362 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I respect the balance that is trying to be struck here, and am not sure yet what the finished product should look like, but the version as of now seems disjointed. The last line of criticism is necessary if all the earlier details are given (to implicitly rebut criticism of his actions or inactions that day). In other words, on the one hand, it was the most important day of his presidency, but on the other hand, what is the point of going through his whereabouts. Maybe we just wipe out all the "he was here, went there, then there, then came back" stuff and keep it shorter. Otherwise, and this would be my preference, we briefly tell the story in as balanced a way as possible. This is what I tried to do with my version last night as per my comment above in this string. I thought mentioning Fahrenheit 9/11 was appropriate/important enough, and I only mentioned Moore in order to point out the man who made the movie was a bush critic. What is the reason not to mention the movie? If everyone else agees on that I will defer of course.-JLSWiki 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the film was one of the major drivers in bringing up the controversy, and should be mentioned. However, this article is already way too long as it is, so adding such specific criticism intext would seem to me counterproductive. I don't understand why this can't be fully addressed in <ref> tags. Although that section is labeled "references", that doesn't mean it can't be used in the traditional "notes" fashion like. Joshdboz 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Fahrenheit 9/11 because 1) it was not the only critic of Bush for this action 2) I felt it was too specific to be mentioned here. I think a better place for this comment would be under the domestic criticism section, along with a more detailed look at the rest of the criticisms present in the film (as it does not just deal with 9/11). The reason I don't want to see the text placed in a <ref> tag is because I don't think anybody would see it. As it stands now, the entire references section is entirely references, no notes, so when you place that text in a ref tag it looks like you're sourcing the earlier text, not clarifying it.--Mbc362 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I took another stab at it....Better or worse?--Mbc362 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence might need a comma or two but I think it's pretty good. The "delay" serves to cover both the 7 min in the classroom and the several-state-trip at the same time. Good semantics-ship. Joshdboz 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mbc's latest stab is better. As written now, I would think that Farenheit 9/11 is the appropriate footnote to source the criticism, but since I put that in text before and it was removed, I dont want to push it. Mbc, if you agree, I will leave it to you to add the footnote. If you don't, let's let it stand for now.-JLSWiki 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm still not entirely pleased with it but frankly I'm not sure how to change it. I added a citation for his critics but I can't seem to find a good one for his supporters (if you could help me out I would greatly appreciate it). I still think a more detailed mentioning of Fahrenheit 9/11 should be inserted under domestic criticism rather than here though. Any thoughts?--Mbc362 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Late to the discussion, but how about a few minor changes. The words are all the same but for a few punctuation changes and transitional phrases:

After being informed that the second tower had also been hit, Bush remained in the classroom for several minutes until the children finished reading their story. Upon leaving, Bush flew to air bases in Louisiana and Nebraska before returning to Washington, D.C. in the late afternoon. Critics would later see this delay as an indicator of his indecisiveness[76] while supporters would see it as his ability to inject calm into frightening circumstances.

I basically cut the first sentence into two separate statements and added a word or two in order to ease the transition. As for Michael Moore, I'm not sure how to include his thoughts without encroaching on the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Thoughts? AuburnPilot^talk 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, I think that is probably a good version. I am fine with a moving mention of Fahrenheit 9/11 to the criticism section rather than inserting it here.-JLSWiki 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation I added was removed for WP:RS. I realized it was a biased source, but I thought I could use it to source criticism for Bush, since it did criticize him for being indecisive for his delay in the classroom. I thought WP:RS meant I couldn't use sites like that to reference facts about bush, but it was OK to use it to reference facts about his critics (as the site clearly is a critic of bush). Was I wrong?--Mbc362 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (Answer: I was wrong)--Mbc362 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess your version will do. As for the mentioning of Fahrenheit 9/11, I was thinking of adding 1-2 sentences in the criticism section. As it stands now, there is only one sentence in the entire article that mentions the movie, which I believe to be insufficient. I think that the timing of its release along with its portrayal of Bush makes it worthy of a more detailed explanation. Would that really violate WP:NPOV?--Mbc362 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war over such a small issue, so...

...in the sixth paragraph of the lead, is it "thumpin'" or "thumping"? A user keeps reverting my reverts to the original word, which was "thumpin'". Thanks, lov e laughterlife♥^talk? 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk section about it, make sure it's still referenced right, and refer others to talk in your edit comment. Dicklyon 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you watch the video [6], the first time Bush says it he says "thumpin", but when he reiterates himself several seconds later he seems to say "thumping". Apostrophe seems the way to go. Joshdboz 01:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the referenced article says "thumpin'", so the page should say the same. --h2g2bob 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

--lov e laughterlife♥^talk? 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lost the popular vote

From the first paragraph: "Bush first won the presidency in 2000 by winning a majority of the Electoral College vote, but becoming the third president in U.S. history to be elected without winning the popular vote (the 1876 and 1888 elections being the other occurrences)."

The grammar is off. It should be noted that Bush is actually the fourth president to win the election but lose the popular vote. John Quincy Adams was the first in 1824 when he won with 30.9% (the vote went to the House).

I reworded the introduction to fix the grammar (taken from an older version). It had originally included J.Q. Adams as the first president to not win a plurality of the popular vote, but that was taken out. I assume it was removed because not all the states had conducted a popular vote in that election. However, there was an official popular vote (albeit a partial one) which Adams lost, and given the fact that he also lost in the electoral college by roughly the same margin it is highly unlikely that he would have won it even if all states had a popular vote.--Mbc362 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who?

Who got rid of the the thing about the 2nd term?--69.113.131.124 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? AuburnPilot^talk 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the the sentances in the intro about his 2004 victory being the first one in 16 years where someone won a majority of the popular vote because of the third party candidacies in 92, 96, and 00 -- I didn't remove it, I just moved it to the section on the 2004 election. I don't think it's historically worthy of being in the intro. To avoid being too long and redundant the introduction shouldn't the intro just be an overview and then maybe mention the most historical points, which with Bush would be his family dynasty, the 2000 election and controversy, 9/11 and the war on terror/war in Iraq.-JLSWiki 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this rant left by the anon user entitled "2nd term" is what he/she is speaking of. If so, I removed it here as off topic trolling. AuburnPilot^talk 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Inviting Users

A while ago I suggested to make an economic policy page, none have propped up, and I don't know much about it in detail. So, I currently have a stub/outline going (the organization is probably pretty bad as of now), although it's pretty much re-organized material from this page; but I invite users to contribute to it:

Economic Policies of the George W. Bush Administration

Thanks

Fephisto 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration which does have an economic section. Considering that that article is quite bloated, you might want to shorten up it's economic section and move more detailed info to your new article. Joshdboz 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Explananation of my last deletition

I have deleted such exerpt "Since his reelection he recieved heavy criticism, even from his his former allies, on Iraq war..." from criticism and perceptions section because it's already written in the beginning of the article. I am also considering deletition of those lines from the table about George W. Bush as a governor that are already written in the the table about him as a president. How do you think, is it right? Sasha best 17 January, 2007

Repeating a sentence from the introduction in the main body of an article is not ipso facto bad style. However, a paraphrase might be better. Blastfromthepast 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I removed a later "widely criticized" for POV...I think what you did is fine, but as Blastfromthepast said, maybe paraphrase. --Iriseyes 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sammy Sosa

i just changed an unimportant part of the article that said that sammy sosa was a member of the white sox and changed it to say that he was a player for the cubs. i don't know how to make it into a link properly so i hope someone will pick up the slack for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnakeRunsCBWest (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Too much criticism!

This article is biased. Dubya receives way too much criticism in this article - it should be re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyte88 (talk • contribs) 06:08, January 23, 2007

You'll say too much, I'll say way too little. Guess that puts article right there where it should be - in the middle. Lovelight 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can say that generally. It is a long article (justifiably) trying to catalogue the events of his life and presidency, for better or for worse. If this were a shorter, newer biographical article, your comment and suggestion might warrant more consideration. Here, if you can be more specific, that would be helpful to understanding your point of view. This has to be one of the most watched articles, and should be, and like all articles should over time be improved upon to be factual and accurate. Parts of this article are better than others (that is, they are more neutral, better supported), but that seems to be the natural wiki evolution. You are welcome to help. In the end, content has to be driven by the facts and events in the real world, nothwithstanding the preferences and opinions of Bush's fans or detractors.-JLSWiki 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet some criticism is still missing

One interesting area unexamined in the article so far is the fascinating debate over Bush's M.B.A. management style. One of his Harvard Business School (HBS) professors is famously on the record for calling W. one of his worst students ever, in radio interviews on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! and elsewhere. Meanwhile, an analytical article by Thomas Lifton in Italic textAmerican Thinker (2-3-2004)Italic text makes the case that W. focuses on a few big themes, and doesn't sweat the small stuff. Lifton, who was a year behind W. in HBS, maintains that HBS's insistence on quality means that even C students had to meet a demanding minimum. But the obvious inference that one can draw from Lifson's article is that W.'s emphasis on trying to preserve the Republican Party over the long term necessarily means that W. has deliberately not moved up unexpected events, like restoration of New Orleans, to higher priority. That, in and of itself, is a legitimate criticism of both G.W. Bush and the Republican Party. Vigorous debate is essential to democracy. Thus, I disagree with JLSWiki, above...Joe 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What did I say? Or did you misunderstand me? Seriuosly. -JLSWiki 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States

This article needs updating, it's a couple months behind. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

see below and let's dicuss removal there-JLSWiki 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Removal of Both Term Articles

I am rather new to Wikipedia so I have been hesitating to say this, but now that it has been brought up in terms of the preceding topic, I believe that both George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States should be removed. I admit I dont know where this has been discussed before (assume it has on the talk pages for those articles), but regardless I think it is something that should be discussed and considered here and now (and there?). I think there should be one complete article on Bush (and all presidents, one term or two term) and I dont think length is reason enough for overlapping articles on each "term". I won't go into all the inevitable problems I see with the current situation, user Night Gyr above notes a symptom of one, but look for others to chime in and tell me I am totally whacked for some Wikipedia reason I have not thought about.-JLSWiki 15:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put a notice of this discussion on both term article talk pages hoping to centralize the discussion here; and I am putting a request for comment out as well.-JLSWiki 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the mentioned articles would focus on his performance as president just by nature of their title. His performance would certainly be up for debate, and an anylasis of his polices has no place in an encyclopedia. I haven't looked at them in depth, but a quick once over does make me suspicious of the intent behind their creation. What I read certainly tries hard to be NPOV, but it rides the line. It feels POV to me. I find myself wondering why they even exist. Should there not be just a main article about the man rather than sub-articles analyzing his policies or performance (which would be commentary and not belong in Wikipedia)? I say delete to both. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is quite remarkable (seen stranger things though), must admit, didn't even noticed that we have all that tucked away… I've only quickscanit, and can only say that I've also wondered about the purpose of their existence (still wondering). If there is something useful there, some sort of useful differences perhaps (honestly not sure about that) it can be merged. Per above, I'd say delete the rest. Lovelight 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have separate articles discussing the events of his presidency in a historical rather than biographical context. I created these articles because the main article was too large and all of the information simply would not fit. If the problem is that every president doesn't have this, then I don't see why they can't either. Reading about the various policy stances as they are in the main article is very helpful but being able to read the events in sequential order is very important to understanding when and why things happened the way they did. I do not support merging these two bulky articles in to the main article that is already twice the recommended length. --The_stuart 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article length, my position is that if the info is good and is well sourced, forget the length. Some topics just can't be "short and sweet". But the existance of the term articles hints at an agenda IMO (even if there isn't one). I'm assuming good faith in your creation of the articles, but I just don't think three articles about Jr. is prudent. The info should be in one place. Damn the length. In this particular case, I think WP:LENGTH agrees. The topic is large in scope. As such, a longer article is warranted. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I only recently found the 1st and 2nd term articles and am finding them fascinating reading and useful information. They're well-referenced and I feel NPOV. If you want to rewrite sections you feel are POV, go right ahead, but I don't support deleting the articles or merging information from them either. Balsa10 16:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd term article is better written for what it is and defintely more sourced than the first. The NPOV factor is debateable (again I think the 2nd is better than the first) but that is not the main issue right now, alhtough I agree with user Thernlund above and think it is likely to become one later. To be clear, I respect the time and effort users like The_stuart have put into those articles. I do think some of that information could be merged into the main article if it is not already covered and if it is deserves inclusion in a Bush article. However, I believe the existence of all three as separate GWB encyclopedia entries does not make sense and is going to be problematic. In response to something the_stuart said above, the distinction between historical and biographical articles to me seems misplaced. Biographical articles are historical articles, they are a subset. The logical/chronological sequence of all three of the subject articles is telling in this regard. Typically, if detailed actions, speeches, events or policies are worthy of encyclopedia mention they should be included in the main bio and if worthy of more indepth treatment, such as elections, major speeches, wars, controversies, etc. one would create/go to an underlying subject article where the issue can be treated in total encyclopedic fashion. The fact that the George Bush article is long is again not a good enough reason - the fact that it is twice as long as the guideline is not surprising and the guideline is just that - a guideline. In fact, I would expect the Bush, Clinton and Reagan articles to be among the longest if not the longest in English Wikipedia given their long, modern day tenures. The important information should included in the bio article. If more indepth treatment of Bush's presidency is necessary in separate articles (I doubt this is often the case) it would make more sense to break out those articles by general topic rather than by chronological term (e.g. Bush/Clinton's Foreign Policy and Bush/Clinton's Domestic Policy). I've gone on long enough and I know this is just my own opinion so I will stop there for now, until we hopefully hear from more users.-JLSWiki 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete either "term" article. Improve substandard articles, don't merge them when they're already overlong. The issue isn't that GWB needs to be as short as possible, but rather that if GWB is too long, it will discourage readers from going through the article. A system of parent and daughter articles remedies both concerns over article length ("it's so long that no one will read it!") and over dealing with massive amounts of noteworthy information ("we can't delete this info altogether, it's moderately important"), and is thus the ideal compromise.
There is plenty of precedent for such daughter articles even when dealing strictly with biographical details, rather than with an overall historical view: see Charles Darwin, for example. That featured article has a daughter article for every single stage in the man's life, in order to allow the top-level article to be as concise as possible, without having to outright delete lesser, but still significant, details on this important figure.
Of course, a biography of Darwin is pretty different from one of GWB. For a more comparable example of an article that uses this method, see Hugo Chávez, a similarly controversial and active politician whose article is quite long (120kb, with refs), but is kept from being much, much larger with the help of plentiful daughter articles, such as the FA Military career of Hugo Chávez and a "term"-type article for Presidency of Hugo Chávez. -Silence 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Silence's points are well-taken as to Wikipedia generally but as applied to the issue of these three articles, I disagree because:

1) The main GWB article is not too long and appropriate sections allow the reader to jump to what they want,
2) the GWB article is not going to be any shorter because of the two "daughter" articles,
3) unlike figures such as Darwin or DaVinci, or Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhour, maybe Chavez, there is but one central part of GWB's life/place in history - his presidency -- that should be covered in his main Wikipedia biographical entry, but right now has two additional articles on the same subject;
4) similarly, the "daughter/term" articles here were not constructed together with the "parent" article as a coherent family so instead of making up a unitary whole as maybe they do in the Darwin case, they are overlapping/redundant here and will lead to POV and other problems (the better the GWB article becomes, GWB fans or critics should not have an avenue to push their POV by creating or editing "daughter" articles that obviously get less supervision),
5) further, the "daughter" articles here are not coherent daughter articles as the Chavez examples might be because there is a clear distinction beyond the temporal in those and there is only a temporal distincition between the two "daughter" articles here, so that things like the war in Iraq, the various policies, etc. are going to get piecemail treatment without appropriate encyclopedic treatment;
6) indeed, despite point (3) above, see all the other George W. Bush daughter articles I just found that exist or are in the works to give greater depth to specific areas or parts of his life, the existance of many but not all of which seems more logical and understandable than these two "term" articles (George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States):

Early life of George W. Bush,

Professional life of George W. Bush,

Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration,

Economic Policies of the George W. Bush Administration,

Foreign Policy of the George W. Bush administration,

Criticism of George W. Bush,

Public perception of George W. Bush,

Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, and

List of George W. Bush Legislation and Programs.

(Holy cow! Maybe the problem is bigger than I thought. Can this situation possibly be good for Wikipedia's purposes?)

Again, I invite others to look at this with an open mind, but I see a serious problem.-JLSWiki 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a different title that is more broad and less biographical? First Term of the George W. Bush Administration? --The_stuart 14:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That might help a very little and probably would not hurt, but the problem is with the content overlapping and covering the same topic as the GWB article.-JLSWiki 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll also go so far as to say that every one of those daughter articles mentioned should be merged. They're all about GB for crying out loud. Thinking in terms of a "print" encyclopedia, you'd never see that. You'd see the content go on as long as it needed to. I will concede that the money folks on a "print" encyclopedia would certainly demand it be trimmed down so as to come under some budget when put to the press. But that's the great thing about Wikipedia. So long as the content is solid, it can continue as needed.

So that my position is clear, I also think many of the Darwin articles should be merged. Not all though. There is a distinct difference between Charles Darwin the man, and Darwinism, the idea formulated by Charles Darwin, and the HMS Beagle, a ship who's fame is owned to Charles Darwin. But some of those others (like Charles Darwin's education) shouldn't exisit. They should be apart of Charles Darwin as they cover the same topic, the man.

Also, someone mentioned the likelyhood that a reader would stop reading because of the length. I don't agree. A typical reader isn't likely to read the whole thing from beginning to end anyway. A student doing research, for example, will scan for a heading in the article that tells him/her where to look for the needed info, then read that section to extract the said info. A casual browser isn't likely to read an article half this length from start to end. I still say... screw the length. It seems warranted. Dubbya is a rather broad topic. So is Charles Darwin for that matter. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you take further discussion along these lines to Wikipedia:Article size and its Talk page. --ElKevbo 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The main point to merging/deleting the term articles seems to be content overlap/duplication, but I don't see a problem with that. We have many lists that organize the same information in different ways. These organize it according to time instead of policy type, and many articles cover the same information in different ways too.

George W Bush, being a very controversial, prominent person in a powerful position who generates a lot of news every day, naturally has a lot of information for these articles and interest in maintaining and reading them. I don't see a problem with the main article's length, as I agree no one will read such an article in one sitting, but the subarticles help to organize information and direct readers to the precise topic they're interested in. I don't think some duplication hurts. MeekSaffron 21:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the main issue here about the content of the pages, or that two separate pages exist for Bush's presidency? I was thinking that if the latter is the main issue, I suggest merging the two articles together. This idea can work for the former also, I guess...Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My main point was the latter -- the main bush article is going to be primarily about his presidency and policies; having another one about the first term of his presidency/policies and another about the second term of his presidency/policies is redundant of the main bush article -- and two or more articles on the same subject, especially a controversial subject (disagreeing with MeekSaffron above), is a big problem that will only grow over time. The secondary point was that the single article makes more sense than two articles split by term because you cannot treat the various Bush domestic and foreign policy topics and agendas as attempted there in adequate encyclopedic fashion that way. Moreover, tying the two points together, there are already daughter articles on domestic, foreign and economic policies and the two term articles will be redundant of those as well.-JLSWiki 13:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The subpages are necessary to reduce the length of this already long article. I don't have the slightest clue on how to fix this problem...Shall we merge the information to other appropriate subpages?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What I keep trying to point out that no one seems to get is that these two articles are not intended to be biographical. They are an overview of a historical period for which we have a considerable amount of data. --The_stuart 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

- I agree. The timeline-as-article approach is to me a very logical approach that anyone interested in his presidency would be interested in reading. Grouping together the different types of policies is very cohesive and helpful, but doesn't diminish the value of the Term articles, especially since they're prose and not just a list of events. A list would be useful but this is much more readable and enjoyable. The reason there are two Term articles instead of one is due to the sheer length of those articles. MeekSaffron 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  - If I understand you both correctly, the goal/purpose of the two term articles could be not to discuss the issues and policies arising during the Bush presidency from a broader and more objective perspective, which the main Bush article does and must do, but rather to be a chronological catalogue of significant events, acts, speeches. One problem is that as currently titled and drafted (especially the Second Term with its policy sections), that framework and distinction is not clear and that is going to raise confusion with the main article and editing nightmares in the future. That is the general Wikipedia redundant article problem that perhaps can be fixed through revision, but (1) I am still skeptical of the propriety of such an encyclopedia article and (2) I am still afraid the term articles will lead to bigger problems in such a format in terms of NPOV problems down the road.-JLSWiki 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I would whole heartedly agree with you on that. When I originally organized the first term article it was in historical context, but the second term article seems to have gone away from that. --The_stuart 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed this line from Foreign Perceptions section

Diplomatic visits made by Bush were accompanied by both large-scale and small-scale protests.

Has there been any US President since say, the Vietnam War period, who hasn't been greeted with large and small protests when they've made state visits abroad? This sentence needs to be reworked to make a claim that Bush has been especially subject to protests with reliable, NPOV supporting references Bwithh 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A mistake in one of the pictures footnotes

Vicente fox is not the president of mexico anymore, could anyone change that?Ptikobj 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Two infoboxes?

Is there really a need for two infoboxes? Wouldn't it be better to merge them, like what was done on John F. Kennedy and Dick Cheney. --Philip Stevens 10:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro Layout

I know this very minor compared to actual subject content but I feel like the intro is far too long. It needs to be cut down and not be so specific. While Bush is a very important (and polarizing) figure and he does deserve the extended info, it's meant as an introduction to the subject, not a detailed biography. I would do this myself but am not 100% how to do it without screwing it up. Pinstripermike 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but there are so many editors insisting on their particular views in the intro that it's hard to see how it could be pared down without an edit war.--Shtove 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the users that added to it and here is why...1)what was there a month ago was not balanced/neutral and, to Shtove's point, rather than remove someone else's points, I augmented; 2) It's not really an intro anymore as much as a summary of the most important points, which does not seem inappropriate for such an important figure and such a long article.-JLSWiki 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How can this article not be locked?

You'd think that like everyone would be vandalizing it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.79.180 (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

yeah... it's locked dude. beilive me, if it wasn't then, it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.75.165 (talk • contribs) 14:15, January 29, 2007

Long Radio Interview With Bush

Add this to the article? The following is a link to a 30 minute interview with Bush in which he lays out Iraq policy, Iran, economy, etc. It's the first substantial interview he's given since his State of the Union Address. Here's the link ---> An NPR Interview With President Bush. --172.132.153.245 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Family background

I was just comparing the Wikipedia articles on John Kerry and George W. Bush and noticed that John Kerry has a huge section entitled "family background." It goes into great length describing his somewhat privileged background. Shouldn't there be a comparable section on the GWB article? His family is even more privileged than Kerry's. 70.22.194.133 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

more vandalism comments

Why is Bush's picture replaced with Hitler's?

I just noticed that. Probably some hater that is not showing an NPOV.

Fixed vandalism on this page.

It said "No more war!" through the entire thing. Reverted it. Ninjarrr 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Which idiot vandalised the opening description of Bush? No matter what your opinion, Wikipedia is not here for that, but for factual presentation. I'm not Bush's biggest fan-I'm not his fan at all, actually- but it certainly don't mean one should destroy a wiki page out of anger, or whatever else. Anyway, someone should change that back. G.AC 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. funny though.

External links

I want to add the following essay from Howard Zinn. Could anybody do that? Thanks. http://www.alternet.org/story/47467/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritonus05 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2007

I honestly don't think that essay would contribute factually to this article if the link were added. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, after all. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Congrats! George W. Bush is now a good article. There were a few editing errors that needed fixed, which I did myself. There are two things though that could make the article a little better. First, I'd correctly quote the quote given in the inaugural address. There were a few other quotes on the page properly done, so I know someone knows how to do it. If not, see WP:MOS.

Secondly, the 'Social services and Social Security' section could use some balance. It offers very little in the line of criticism for proposal. Though there's nothing bluntly POV that would cause the article to fail. If the size of the article could be summarised a little, that'd also be a plus. Though, overall a job well done for such a controversial figure. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have requested a review of this article at Good Article Review. I don't believe this article meets the "Stable" criteria, as it is (s)protected and under a constant stream of vandal attacks. --PresN 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is excluded from that criteria. Basar 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If you have comments on this review, one way or another, it'd be a good idea to state it at WP:GA/R. That way a consensus can be formed as to whether delist it as a good article or to keep it. Keep in mind though, the discussion on the review page is only to be on its merits as a good article (see criteria at WP:WIAGA) and not personal opinion or general discussion. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Villian/Hero of the Year

There is actually no article under the website that the link listed takes you to... Nor could I find any information on such a study to begin with... If anyone cannot provide a credible source for this information, it should not be included in the article. Either someone else can take it off, or I will wait for a reasonable explaination... Thanks. Jgrizzy89 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The page for the old article was deleted. It happens all the time. I've changed the citation to one that works.--Mbc362 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[War_President-1] "Transcript for Feb. 8th". MSNBC. 2004-02-08. Retrieved 2006-09-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]