Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

"More dangerous than Kim Jong-il" statement?

Hello

I am not a wikipedia expert, and I am certainly no supporter of George Bush. But the following remark seems exaggerated to me. "" Historical American allies such as France[213] and Britain[214] have held remarkably unfavorable opinions of Bush, with many believing him to be more dangerous than Kim Jong-il. ""

I think the article from which this information is taken distorts slightly the results of the poll on which it is based, for the following reasons :

• this exact poll comparing him to kim Jong-il was only made in great britain (thus contradicts the "many allies" part)
• The polls did not ask which was more dangerous, but which was a greater danger to peace. "Being a danger to peace" is not the same as "being dangerous".

I replaced the phrase with the following, which I think reflects more the polls cited as reference in the article.

New :

"" Historical American allies such as France and Britain have held remarkably unfavorable opinions of Bush, with a 2006 poll even showing that britons were considering him more a danger to peace than Kim Jong-il. ""

Camille Lambert (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

After rephrasing your remarks you still left out Germany as a major ally. Don't know why. Besides that, my answer was to your original post so I won't rephrase mine. Besides that you might be right with that specific poll and I'll look into it at some point. --Floridianed (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I apologize, but I noticed my post was very confusing and not clear at all. Regarding Germany, in fact I was focussing on the second part of the sentence and did not want to get involved in the first part for fear of making a mistake. I saw that someone deleted the Kim Jong-Il part anyway, which is not bad because it felt like a little bit of trivia.. Camille Lambert (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1st, you forgot Germany wich is a major ally (not regarding the Iraq war also like France). Sidenote: Spain's goverment under Aznar was a contributing ally but without support of the people of Spain. The majority (It was at least 70%) was against it.

2nd, If you dislike the poll from 2006 you're right, newer polls would be different and would make Bush show even worse then in 2006. So my Question to you is: Do you really want to go into that issue and make it even worth for him (and that would mean, you have to come up with a reliable source to back it up) or just leave it as it is? You make the choice (as long as it doesn't interfere with WP-guidelines. --Floridianed (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

did you mean "worse" ? Camille Lambert (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it. Guess sometimes I'm with stupid  :) --Floridianed (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the edit that rewords my statement of notable dissent (England and France, our allies) into a meaningless "teach the controversy" statement which calls his perception "mixed" (lumping France in with Iran, and surprise surprise, Israel supports Bush as they have all previous American presidents since 1948). You don't need to be a poli sci major to know that England's frosty relations are more notable than Iran's. Shii (tock) 06:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Domestic Policy Section

In the domestic policy section it states, "The Dow Jones Industrial Average has grown by about 30 percent since January 2001." This statement is false. It is cited from Yahoo finance. According to Yahoo finance, as of June 12th 2008 the Dow Jones Industrial Avg closed at 12,142. When GWB took office on Jan 20th 2001 the DJ had last closed at 10,578 on Jan 18th 2001. That is an overall increase of 14.7% over 7 1/2 years and an annual increase (based on 7 1/2 years) of 1.97%. On June 13th 2008, Washington Mutual was offering online saving accounts with an annual interest rate of 3.25%. When Bill Clinton took office on Jan 20th 1993 the DJ opened at 3,255. When he left office the DJ had closed at 10,578. An overall increase of 225% and an annual increase of 28.2%. Jeff1791 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)J.Haddad

Well, put it in. Just use the straight numbers and if you want to use a comparison I'd use a 10, 20 or 60 year one (all of which show the economic growth under bush's tax cuts to be anemic), rather than comparing it to just Clinton as that will bring up claims of POV and show that the Tax cuts have done what was projected by most economists from the start and slowed growth, driven up inflation and devalued the dollar. RTRimmel (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He can't, he's not autoconfirmed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Publication, literacy and reading section

The section on "Publication, literacy and reading" is quite odd. It's trivial at best, incomplete and poorly composed at worst. I think it's best to remove it at this time. Majoreditor (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. So I deleted that section for the reasons stated above. I also moved the "Assassination attempt" sub-subsection so that it's just before the "Other matters" sub-subsection (which seems like hub for miscellaneous material). --SMP0328. (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine

I do not see any information regarding George Bush's history regarding cocaine usage. I would think there would be. Steve (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Texas Air National Guard subsection of the Childhood to mid-life section there's a reference to illegal drug use (no express mention of cocaine). That subsection also links to George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

UN didn't assert Iraq in Possession of WDMs. In fact just the opposite was true

Quote in original article: "In March 2003, Bush along with the UN and Congress asserted Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and ordered the invasion of Iraq.[6]"

1) The U.N. did not assert Iraq had WDMs. In fact just the opposite was true. As reported by Hans Blix and Mohaned ElBardei to the U.N. Security Council on February 14, 2002; "How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." [1] [2]

2) UN inspector were in Iraq just prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq. It was for the safety of the U.N. inspectors that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered all U.N. inspectors, U.N. support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers out of Iraq after U.S. threaten to launch war. This event occurred after Bush failed to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq and after Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq or face U.S. invasion. [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthandjustice (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He is right. I noticed the error yesterday (or the day before yesterday), and I removed it. The source that is provided with the error does not state that the UN believed Iraq had WMDs in March 2003. The error was probably a case of someone sneakly vandalising the page, by adding a source next to the error in question.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huge vandalism

I just repaired a very large piece of vandalism, the revision history has the original page that was made by "UnitedStatesian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac4213 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the users profile page, and his actual edit, it seems it was made by someone else who just didn't sign their edits ~ Zac4213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac4213 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Offshore Drilling

Bush is to ask Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/06/17/2008-06-17T235201Z_01_N17395073_RTRIDST_0_BUSH-ENERGY-UPDATE-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8"Jobby (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can this be added to the Environmental policy sub section? 8"Jobby (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how they are going to spin this as current estimates indicate that 25 billion barrels of oil are available in the 'limited' areas that are allowed for drilling and less than 17% of them are being used? If only 17% of the current area, the easiest to access and the cheapest to drill from(in most cases), is being used why will opening up more decrease cost? Alternatively, why don't they use the 44 million of open acres in the already authorized drilling land in the continental US? Historically land based oil is always less expensive than off shore oil anyway. The only reason that I see it as a valid environmental concern is that A: We already have millions of acres available for drilling that are not being used and B: The areas where they want to drill will impact fishing/tourism/in shipping lanes and other economic areas meaning that it will cost jobs while unused oil fields are sitting off in more economic areas to drill anyway? It sounds like a load of BS to me, but hey with $4.00 gas I suppose its a point. RTRimmel (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/134047/614/81/537906

It should be added, but perhaps it should be added under the economic section, not the the environmental section. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that 8"Jobby (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC) And to attempt to answer your point Rimmel; Land drilling - that ship has sailed and there is no way it could happen. Although slight, the chance of offshore drilling happening is better. Thing is, it'll take at least 10 years before that oil is at the pump. Hopefully we'll be coming off fossil fuel by then.....

This whole thing is significant though, as it's Bush's last play so to speak. He doesn't have much (or any!) political capital left, so this is just another attempt to make crony oil buddies happy before he goes back into the private sector. 8"Jobby (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the Daily Kos to be a reliable source. A strongly politically or ideologically based website is not a good place to find objective facts. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Daily Kos" is indeed not a reliable source but the fact that "...oil companies already have under lease 68 million acres on federal lands and waters _ outside the ban area _ that are not being developed." [5] is well reported and more research needs to be done before including this issue in this and McCain's article. --Floridianed (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Poll replacement

I noticed some recent edits giving Bush as 23% approval rating as opposed to the 28% we had up there. The Gallup poll is the gold standard for polls and the 28% Gallup gives him the worst approval rating (and highest disapproval rating) of any President in US history. The existing high point is also a Gallup number and the highest approval rating in history. Putting in another poll at this point is kind of redundant unless its another Gallup one. We can always use the ARG 19% approval rating if we just want to make Bush look bad, but we are officially kicking a dead horse here. Worst ever is worst ever, going lower is well... blah at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use the Bloomburg poll you'll have to change the preceding sentence which correctly states Bush's highest and lowers approval ratings of any US President. At this point, we understand he is hideously unpopular (again most unpopular President in US history) and anything more than this is beating a dead horse. RTRimmel (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Official White House portrait?

Does he even have one? And if so it would be interesting to see if it could be included in the article. 88.110.207.125 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

2004 Presidential candidacy

I have removed the following material from this subsection of the Campaigns section:

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a liberal Republican who later refused to vote for Bush in 2004, considered challenging Bush for renomination in the New Hampshire primary on an anti-war platform. In his autobiography, Against the Tide (2007), Chafee states that 'In the fall of 2003, part of me thought it was cowardly to oppose the president on so many issues and then not oppose him head-on as he sought renomination.' However, he decided not to run after the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. Bush otherwise won every primary without serious opposition.

This is not notable. Many people consider running for President and choose not to do so. There's no reason why Lincoln Chafee deserves special mention for simply considering whether to run for President. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2000 primary/election

This article has the involvement of many, many editors but I am sorry to say that the 2000 primary section looks badly written to me. I think it needs a complete rewrite.

Why not just cover the facts? That McCain was the major competitor, Mrs. Dole dropped out, Forbes was running. Instead, it covers some disjointed statements about church, conservatives, and Rove.

In WP, I am not for or against Bush, I merely write facts and try to make it sound like an encyclopedia. Is there any opposition for me to re-write it? If so, I'll fuck off. Chergles (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. At least the first paragraph reads more like a newspaper's "funny" section than an election report. If you rewrite please don't use the "f" word ;) --Floridianed (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support- a rewrite is definitely in order. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This would definitely help. Thanks for volunteering. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The 1st draft is done. It's suppose to be factual and neither a smear of Bush nor a glowing report of him. I think the re-write covers the primaries more comprehensively than the previous version of quotes, church, conservatives, Christ, etc. Of course, it can be improved. Overall, I think the length is appropriate to Bush's biography as the primary was a notable event but not worthy of long paragraphs. Chergles (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So far so good. Thanks for your work and don't worry about possible further improvements since you took the first step and a good job. Maybe others might kick-in to help. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should actually include what the push-poll in South Carolina suggested about McCain regarding the "illegitimate black child". It's a highly notable point in the campaign.The Enlightened (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is potentially noteworthy as up to that point McCain was the presumptive nominee on most polls. It would be tricky to keep NPOV though as it was a very dirty underhanded smear that was ultimately linked to Karl Rove though a series of cutouts. Its probably worth a sentence though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stem Cell Research in this Article

Greetings,

I read the stem cell section of this article and noticed a few areas in which changes need made. See the text below for suggestions.

In the first sentence, one may want to mention that prohibitions on research on human embryos resulted from the Dickey-Wicker Amendment passed under the Public Health Service Act.

On 9 August 2001, the president stated his intentions in a presidential address, however there was no executive order. In fact, the NIH page cited in the text says nothing about an executive order, but says rather that President bush "announced that federal funds may be awarded..."

The next sentence needs factually tightened if it is going to offer criticism of the approved lines.

The sentence about the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 is factually incorrect. The Act was only to allow the federal funding of all ethically derived stem cell lines and would not address Dickey-Wicker at all. These are two separate matters.

Lastly, this should be updated to include recent vetoes.

I would be happy to make these changes if permitted, although I see editing of the article is restricted for understandable reasons. Mperoski (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The feel of this article

Look. I know that alot of people don't like President Bush, but this needs to be written in an objective tone. Therefore, I am asking if we could put the {{POV}} tag on.csieb2011 —Preceding comment was added at 03:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Slapping a sticker on the top of the article doesn't actually accomplish anything, and pointing out where specifically you see problems with the neutrality of the article would be much more productive. If you'll do that, we will be able to address those problems. - auburnpilot talk 04:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was written quite objectively and I have often been on the opposite side of heavy criticisms of George W. Bush. I was actually quite surprised after reading the article for its objectivity. Good job guys. - Randalllin (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. Although I was amused to see the exact date and time that Bush's presidency ends prominently featured at the top of the page. Maybe there should be a countdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.251.232 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than adding the POV tag, specify what you feel is causing the article to violate the NPOV policy. SMP0328. (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article has done well in terms of objectivity, due to the vocal support and opposition that Bush faces. It may seem overly criticizing, but the fact of the matter is, there is a significant amount to criticize. It is factually supported by President Bush's approval rating that he does not have a particularly favorable reputation. I don't want to get into any arguments; the world doesn't need any more arguments; I just want to say that given the body of facts, it is hard to write an article that is completely even in terms of criticism and praise. Kodmkl (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need of a "POV-tag" at all. Chergles already started working on removing "trivia" and useless "crap" (if I may say so) to make this article worth to be named an enziclopedic one. Some more time and effort will sure replace the sections in question to the better. Unless you're looking for a big praise of Bush you should be pleased when the overhaul will be finished. --Floridianed (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Little side remark: Even so the majority disapproves of him, this article shouldn't become a "smear". He gets that plenty from other sources but here it doesn't comply with WP-rules. --Floridianed (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Should something be said about the major success of the surge that President Bush ordered? This is in regards to what AuburnPilot said about objectivity.SP4 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. You can find information on the results of the surge here(see the "results of troop surge" section. Kodmkl (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I hate the man, but here is an example of the tone perceived by the original editor..."Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968, despite scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test." An alternate and, in my opinion, more accurate way of putting that would be to say, "Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968, after passing a test designed to weed out candidates." I fail to see how "despite" would ever come into it...but whatever. 69.133.194.44 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying "despite" isn't important, but we shouldn't lose the information that his score was the lowest that would've been acceptable. Your suggested wording would omit that fact. JamesMLane t c 12:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: "Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968"

POV: "YEAH BUT JUST BARELY, LAWLZ!!11!1!!"

The point is that he was a member of the Air National Guard, not what any of us think of the testing requirements. Happy cricket (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and Editing Mistakes Throughout

Has no one proofread this?

"Affect" should be "effect" when talking about Laura Bush. "liaison" is misspelled as "laison" when referring to his oil exploration ventures.

There are more I'm sure, and I'll update this as I find them 142.177.231.233 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed those, and thanks for the heads up. Happyme22 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Occupation

I'm not a very knowledgeable person on Wikipedia's standards, but shouldn't his Occupation include "Politician", or is that not an occupation? If someone could fix this, that would help. I'm not sure if I know how to change something like that, so I'd rather not try (for fear of screwing something up) --Passerby25 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush Sewage Plant

I would like to incorporate this story into the George Dubya Bush article. I think this inclusion is appropriate because the Bill Clinton article mentions that a street and library are named in his honor; the Ronald Reagan article mentions that an airport (DCA), aircraft carrier, among many others, are named in his honor; and the Jimmy Carter article mentions that the Carter Center and a street in India (Carterpuri) are named in his honor.

Many references!

• New York Times - An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace: "... President Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom ..."
• Huffington Post - 'George W Bush Sewage Plant' Proposed In San Francisco: "... Looking to honor the forty-third President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, the recently formed Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is looking to change the name of the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility ..."
• The Times (UK) - San Francisco to vote on George W Bush sewage works: " ... San Francisco is to hold a vote on whether to rename one of its largest sewage treatment facilities after George W. Bush, in what supporters describe as “a fitting monument to the President’s work” ..."
• The Chronicle - Satire at the ballot box to 'honor' Bush: "... They're the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, but don't let the serious name fool you. The group's intentions are in the gutter: They want to rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant come January, when the next president is sworn in ..."
• Slog - Re: The George W. Bush Sewage Plant: "... So naming naming sewage treatment plants—or other suitably disgusting facilities—after the bastard seems like a great idea to me ..."
• Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco

Thank you! --Inetpup (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the future, don't claim consensus when no discussion has yet taken place. As it is, your proposed revision^[6] is excessively long and worded in a smug manner inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. If the proposed name change were approved, it might deserve mention as a single sentence somewhere, but certainly not its own subsection. From what I've seen it looks like your motive here is purely partisan. Honestly I'm surprised this has its own article at this point - a sewage treatment plant hardly seems notable, especially considering that this proposed name change has not even taken place. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would not go with the text he used, but a brief mention is in fact appropriate in this article. A one-liner referencing the NYT piece. This is an established fact. --BenBurch (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, User:BenBurch, I'm on the same page as you. I'm happy to agree that a one-liner with the a reference to the NYT is appropriate. May I offer that you introduce this text (instead of me)? If I introduce it, I take the chance of offending the other guy, Jc-S0CO regarding WP:NPOV. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Make no mistake: I have no problem with adding the content itself, or with you personally. It was the manner in which you presented the content which I took issue with. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This information is out of place in the Public Views and Perception section. Not only is information more for WikiNews, but it already mentioned in the appropiate spot, the Commemoration section. I will move the NYT reference to that section. Brinkley32 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just not notable at all. Please delete. --75.21.165.136 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If true he would be the only US President with this honor, that makes it notable. That said, they actually have to name it the George W Bush sweage plant prior to us actually including it. A "They may have" line is complete hogwash. Its critical infrastructure, if they named a major bridge after him that would be noted. If they named a major airport after him, it would be noted. Unfortunatly under that context, if they name a major sewage treatment facility after him... we have to note it because its notable. Seweage Treatment is one of the halmarks of modern city building and absolutly critical to our society, which is kind of funny but absolutly true. Read up on sweage/waste water treatment and you'll be surprised at the number of diseases it prevents, the size that the city is able to expand to, and the overal usefulness of the structure. RTRimmel (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely notable.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely think this section should stay and the "Lists of miscellaneous information" template box to be removed since it is misplaced (thus it could/should be replaced by a "might change in the future template". My guess is, that if there wouldn't be the "San Francisco sewage plant proposal", there would be no objection to it. So I think we should "live with this" for now and if the proposed naming in "question" is turned down in the future (what I think will happen rather soon) the "problem" will be solved. --Floridianed (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed unless it passes at which point it is notable. They might do alot of things, what is actually done is significant. RTRimmel (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of corruption and war crimes

Well, when is wikipedia going to update its article regarding the newly published biography about George Bush, were evidence is shown which proves that Tony Blair already had a spy team in Iraq before the invasion started, and that Tony had, based on the intelligence, told Bush that there were no threat of WMD's what-so-ever. Bush then shortly after forced Tony Blair to hide the evidence so that it would look like there was a threat. What I'm asking is, that we should at least give information about the sources which this book points to, as this surely not far from now will be the big end for both George Bush and Tony Blair. --Nabo0o (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you speaking of The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals? If so, I'd probably say the answer to your first question is "never" (or not now, really). Because this is a biography of a living person, we have to be very careful of what negative information is included, so that we don't represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If Jane Mayer's assertions are widely held (and confirmed by reliable sources), we can include a brief mention within the main article and provide greater detail in the Criticism of George W. Bush article; it needs an update anyway. If you're not speaking about the claims within this book, which book are you talking about? - auburnpilot talk 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We should be careful when it comes to books about President Bush. Many of them will be nothing more than original research. What proof does The Dark Side provide for its claim that Bush forced Blair into anything? If there's no reliable evidence for that claim, then it shouldn't be in the article. Original research doesn't become reliable evidence just because it's mentioned in a book that provides no verification for it. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the claims in the book are old news gathered up from different sources and placed in the same text for the 'first' time. On her face, Jane Mayer is a credible enough journalist but that doesn't necessarily mean that the book is (we have had several credible experts sourced in the article that under scrutiny are highly misleading). From the critical reviews I've read it is a well sourced book and does contain a lot of connect the dots style original research (Official A says something inconsequential and Official B says something inconsequential but when you place the two together in context its not so inconsequential style things). I'd actually have to do a full read of it rather than trust the critical reviews, but it did not make a big enough splash to attract higher profile discrediting efforts which could mean that its either incredible accurate or wildly inaccurate so much that neither camp wants to touch it. RTRimmel (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right that this should wait until the sources which she has in her book becomes more recognized and widely accepted, though I have a fealing that it may not take to long a time before that happends, and of course, as in a democraty (although this isn't a democraty) it is the oppinion of the majority which ultimatly decides the fate of the matter :) --Nabo0o (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, sorry for this double post but I found the name of the arthour and book in our newspaper, its called The Way of the World, written by Ron Suskind, apperently its just been released. --Nabo0o (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with Mayer's Dark Side actually, after review its just alot of the text we already have here in one book rather than dozens and dozens. Ron Suskind, on the other hand, is a Pulitzer Prize winner and and old school journalist who prizes integrity more than most. One of his other predictions that was poo pooed was that Bush was going to attempt major Social Security reform during his second term and was proven true after significant denials from the White House. If he says something, its typically very well sourced and accurate but I haven't done any major research to back that up concerning whatever it current 'worst thing Bush has ever done' is. Its probably more notable than Mayer's Dark Side which is essentially old news with a pretty bow on it. RTRimmel (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of indictments and prosecutions of members of Pres. Bush's party, and the series of scandalous revelations about foreign and domestic policy, it seems absurd that there is not more exploration of these in this article. It should be balanced and cited, of course, but it should be there.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.113.23 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They're probably given appropriate weight, actually. The problem is that there is simply such an incredible amount of verifiable information on the Bush presidency, it would be inappropriate to give a lot of attention on this page to each piece of it as in comes in via the news. You may be interested in Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to delete sentence

I move to delete this sentence: "This was at a time when more than ten thousand Air National Guard personnel, many fighter pilots, were called to active duty to serve in Vietnam.[23]" What does this have to do with the biographical subject? The only connection I can see is an unstated unsourced argument that Bush received favorable treatment in admission to the ANG, which would be a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Pusher robot (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence and a reference to the "height of the Vietnam War" at the beginning of the Texas Air National Guard subsection of the Childhood to mid-life section. Those references to the Vietnam War were clearly an anti-Bush POV push. SMP0328. (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "sotu2002" :
  • [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html Presidential State of the Union Address [[January 29]] [[2002]]]
  • In the latter half of 2002, CIA [[National Intelligence Estimate|reports]] contained assertions of [[Saddam Hussein]]'s intent of reconstituting nuclear weapons programs, not properly accounting for Iraqi [[biological warfare|biological]] and [[chemical warfare|chemical weapons]], and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm| title = Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs| accessdate = | year = 2002| month = October| publisher = [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed unclosed reference. Jpers36 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I cannot help but feel the bias of this article just oozing. I'm sorry, but the objectivity of this article is nil. I am not surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesnoteworthy (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 July 2008

In what way is this article biased? Be specific. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead section to start with. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to identify the subject of the article and establish notability. Statements about his current popularity or lack thereof belong down in the narrative of the article, not in the lead section.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means a fan of Bush, but I agree here. The lead focuses almost entirely on the controversial things that he has done (for example, why is the "Mission Accomplished" speech mentioned in th lead section?). It seems like the lead section of a political figure should cover notability, major doings (ex. Iraq war), and major policy positions. I don't really see anything about Bush's politics in the lead section, which seems a little odd given that he's a world-famous politician. Really the last two paragraphs about the 04 election and approval ratings probably don't belong in the lead section at all. The 04 election is not nearly as relevant to his presidency as the 00 election. -- Tyler (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as controversies being mentioned in the lead, please see our guideline: WP:LEAD. It states, "[The lead] should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." Mentioning notable controversies is not a sign of bias, but that the lead complies with policy. Also, I quite disagree about the 04 election not being relevant. - auburnpilot talk 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but for the majority of the lead, controversies are covered at the exclusion of things like domestic policy positions (except for one line about his tax cut), or foreign policy other than the Iraq war. I'm not saying that the lead shouldn't mention how controversial the Iraq war is, or mention that he has the lowest approval rating ever, but I think the current lead tries to cram in too much detail about these things which causes it to exclude other topics for the sake of length. As far as the 04 election, what is so special about it that it deserves to be in the lead when most articles about presidents exclude electoral history from the lead section? Do we really expect to see a wikilink to John W. Davis in the lead section of the article on Calvin Coolidge? The 04 election was not historically remarkable, unlike 2000. I suppose my thesis is that the lead suffers from shortsightedness in focusing so heavily on current controversies and elections, which makes it seem biased if you look at it from the context of how you might write an article on Bush 20 years from now. -- Tyler (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that in 20 years Bush is going to be hailed as an unpopular Genius who did what he had to do and saw us through a time of great trouble or a terrible president who traded in American Ideals for a small measure of safety and spent the nation into crisis. But that's in 20 years, and we don't have that data yet. Right now, we edit with what we have and add in more information as it becomes available. The 04 election makes the lowest percentage victory and the highest number of votes against a sitting war time president in American history, its notable in that regard perhaps even more significantly than the 2000 election. Bush is one of the most contriversal presidents in US history, its going to dominate here. If you feel like changing the section please write a draft and post it on the discussion page. I'm personally waiting for more information before making any sustancial edits, the fact that he is called the "Torture President" is probably notable but also not included (millions of hits on google last time I checked with hundreds of news articles in the non-american press). Bush' politicising of the Justice department keeps getting worse and worse. Ultimatly, Bush's legacy will not be determined for ten to twenty years so we have to focus on what we have not on what might happen one way or another. RTRimmel (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about "20 years from now" is in reference to the idea that an "A-class" or "featured" article should be an article that is "finished" and does not need further substantial changes except in light of new information. Therefore, except for the lack of a section on post-presidential activities, an A-class article on Bush in January 2009 should also qualify as A-class in 2029. What I am suggesting is not that we try to project what the general opinion of Bush will be in the future (since that is still opinion and doesn't belong in the article anyway), but that we re-tool the lead to address what will be relevant to readers looking for information on Bush in the long term.

When I look up an article on a historical politician, I mainly want to know: Who was s/he? What were the major things s/he accomplished? What political stances did s/he have? What (if any) controversies or scandals was s/he involved in? I really don't care about details like who they won re-election against or what their exact approval ratings were unless I'm planning to read the whole article in detail anyway. The current lead does a good job of addressing the first question, does a decent job of the second, but then almost completely ignores the third in favor of focus on the fourth. And then there's a whole paragraph dedicated to a rather un-remarkable re-election that could definitely wait until a little further down the page. I'll see if I can put together a draft of what I think would be a better lead later today. -- Tyler (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On a sitting president? He's still in office. We need to at least wait for him to get out of office before we start that level of detail. Further, its not that he's unpopular... he's the LEAST POPULAR US PRESIDENT EVER. That, to me, indicates that some degree of mention of his popularity (or absolute lack thereof). As for his two elections, both have the distinction of being notable for a variety of factors (lost popular vote and won election and lowest reelection victory margin of any wartime president in history). So I guess it depends on your opinion of what is notable. It could stand to have more information about his various positions, but I think it has a respectable amount considering his positions, but if you want to provide more detail go right ahead. The problem with the election results was an issue of weasel words and hard numbers, basically Bush both won an absolute majority with the most votes ever and the smallest margin of victory with the most votes against him ever. Just saying Bush won the 2004 election is a lie of omission as he as a sitting war time president should not even have had a real contest, yet instead he just barely pulled it off. "Bush won the 2004 President Election with an absolute majority of the vote, and the lowest victory margin of any wartime US President having both the most votes for and against him in any Presidential election." But the reason he won an absolute majority was due primarily to low 3rd part candidate support, mainly due to his nature as a highly polarizing figure. Underexplaining an issue to fit into the lead isn't going to help anyone either. RTRimmel (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Least popular EVER? Oh dear, what are you thinking? He's the least popular in the 70 years since they've begun polling presidential popularity--we're talking FDR's administration here. I assure you, Herbert Hoover in his day was a heck of a lot less popular than Bush. Abe Lincoln was so unpopular half of the country split from the USA in order to not be under him. (Lincoln also barely pulled off a mid-war re-election.) You have misunderstood the basic facts, hurting your arguments as to what should be placed in the lead. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you also undermine your point by harping on about the "lowest victory margin of any wartime" President. It's equally relevant that he won the first majority since 1988. It's all a matter of how you want to spin it. Still, I don't know that the lead seems "biased," particularly after Matt Yeager's edits, but I still think it's a little light on the substance: of the 5 paragraphs, one is on the 2004 election, one sums up his political career through 2000, one reduces his policy positions to two sentences, and the most detailed one is about public opinion polling (which I think can be reduced to one sentence and the bulk of it stuck in the body... I don't think, for example, that the opinion of sub-Saharan Africa necessarily needs to be in the lead). JEB90 (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We have statistics that say he's the least popular ever and opinions that Hoover had a lower overall opinion. You could argue Pierce or Fillmore more convincingly honestly but that's fine. Without statistics to back it up all you have is opinion. You could pull from several historical journals comparing the pros and cons of the various presidents, however for accurate opinion polling you have to go modern. Heck, I would have honestly probably gone Truman(there was a real dud for a president) but Bush's approval numbers are actually below him and Truman was by all accounts terribly unpopular, yet... somehow people liked him better and we are talking about popularity. Wow... and for Lincoln? You might not understand what was going on during that time frame to be trying to draw a link between those two issues. And he won with a 10% margin, which is... what 4 time's bush's 2004 2.4% margin and greater still than his 2000 less than 1% victory. And that's barely, that's why I prefer the actual numbers because you can't use weasel words, what is the comparable term here if 10% is barley 2.4% is minuscule? Less than 1% is microscopic? Interesting grasp of 'facts'. I just love ad hominem attacks when the other person didn't do any research, but continue. Plus he ran as the candidate from the National Unity Party dropping party affiliation for the good of the country. So... I'd venture to say that's an apples to oranges comparison. Any it could be argued that anyone other than Douglas getting elected would have caused the same issue, but that's a massive and entirely different discussion that has no place here.

In 92 and 96 we had Ross Perot pulling in a significant amount of support, and in the 2000 election we had Nader pulling in several percent and in 2004 third party candidates pulled in virtually 0% of the total vote. The educated argument is why did 3rd party votes drop to near zero in the 2004 election after representing such a significant percentage of the prior 3 elections. (20% in 92, 10% in 96, 5% in 00, and 1% in 04) The fact that he won with the lowest margin of victory of any wartime president in history is significant from an academic viewpoint and therefor is encyclopedic. You'll notice that presently the sentence does include that he did with an absolute majority as well as with a very low margin. We could put in "Bush won his 2004 reelection with an absolute majority of the vote but with the lowest margin of victory of any US wartime president in history." Or just leave the numbers in there and move on. I like the numbers. We don't get into prolonged discussions about what is or is not significant when its just numbers. And the numbers didn't just magically pop in there, the last big debate is what got them in there. What would you prefer to see as opposed to what is already there? RTRimmel (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also not one mention of the controversy that was sparked up in his 2000 Presidential Campaign regarding his cocaine abuse. There is mention of the alcohol use, but not of the cocaine? I remember this coming up BY NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS during his campaign can somebody please clarify why this is not mentioned in this article? GigaTronicus (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Historian polls

I recently changed a paragraph on presidential historians' opinions of President Bush. It was reverted by User:Comesincolors2. Here are my reasons for changing the paragraph:

• The first sentence stated: "Several surveys of professional historians have found that majorities regard Bush's presidency as a failure." It says several surveys, yet three are cited, and two of those were conducted by the same organization. These three polls by two organizations cannot possibly be "a majority" of all presidential historians. So my edit reflected the more reasonable word 'many', as 'majority' cannot possibly be factually accurate. In this case, it is not a weasel word. I also changed 'failure' to 'below average', establishing the fact that Bush is largely unpopular (see below).

• The biggest problem is that inclusion of historians' opinions and polls in this paragraph is arbitrary. There are hundreds of polls that have surveyed historians that display hundreds of different outcomes, so what makes these three polls so special? Tying into what I said in the above paragraph, User:Comesincolors2 attempted to solve the 'majority' problem by inserting "of those surveyed" after 'majority', yet what polls are included is arbitrary. So yes, it may be a majority of those surveyed in those polls, but why are those three polls the best ones to include? It does not matter that they are reliably sourced, for they are no better than any others and as the caveat says, they are not a scientific measure. For these reasons, I took on a more general approach and removed the specifics of the polls, while the idea that Bush is largely unpopular is evident from the first sentence.

Frankly, the thing that is most troubling to me is that these three were chosen out of hundreds. As I said, inclusion is arbitrary, so it is best to exclude the specifics of any of them. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there have not been any responses, I am implementing my proposed version per my rationale above. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hap - sorry, I missed your note above; I'll add this article to my watchlist. It sounds like your strongest objection is that you believe polls were chosen arbitrarily, and that there are hundreds of such polls with "hundreds of different outcomes". Can you support that? Specifically, are there any other polls of historians asking them to rate GWB's presidency? I've googled repeatedly, and have only been able to find the three cited, i.e. Siena (2006)[7] and HNN (2004, 2008)[8][9]. But you say there are hundreds more out there? I seriously doubt there are even a dozen, and if there are, let's work them in. In the meantime, if we can't find any others, then there's been no cherry picking, and thus no violation of NPOV in terms of non-neutral fact selection.

As for majorities of historians surveyed vs. majorities of all historians, my wording change[10] fixed that. Attributing these opinions to the majority of historians in the cited surveys is exactly what WP:V says to do: give facts about opinions and attribute them.

There is no good reason to change the term "failure" to "below average", since the polls explicitly use the term "failure":

• Siena '06: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%.
• HNN '04: Success: 19%; Failure: 81%.
• HNN '06: Success: 1.2%; Failure: 98.2%, with 61% adding their opinion that GWB is the worst in history.

Sources don't get much more explicit than that. "Below average" is simply not as precise, and I would argue that failing to call a spade a spade here is an NPOV violation.

In summary, there is no reason to believe that any relevant sources have been excluded from the earlier version. Those sources are summarized properly, with the caveats about methodology in the HNN poll included, and the exact results quoted. For those reasons, I believe the earlier version was superior in every respect, and am restoring it. (Obviously, my position on that would be likely to change if more polls crop up.) Also, I added more from the Siena poll addressing the question of how ratings might change over time, a point that GWB himself has commented on (see last sentence of that paragraph). sincerely, Comesincolors2 (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, there is no need to apologize.

It seems I exaggerated with the hundreds of surverys contention in my previous post. And nothing against you Comesincolors, because I think you are a very good editor, but I just can't help but feel that your version is not completely neutral. For instance, the first sentence reads, "Several surveys of professional historians have found that majorities of those surveyed regard Bush's presidency as a failure." It is misleading: we can apparently only find three surverys from two organizations taken of historians, so that is not several. There are then five sentences about how Bush is a failure, the worst president in history, etc. Then comes the caveat: the two HNN polls are informal, and not scientific. I think information that goes into an encyclopedia needs to be scientific and proven. The HNN surveys appear to give only two choices: success and failure, without any middle ground. And are these unscientific polls reliable, neutral, and fit for an encyclopedia? Do they provide a balance of political historians (evidently not, as it appears to be open to any and all)? This is a largely partisan matter as well, as most liberals strongly dislike President Bush, while most conservatives tend to look at him more favorably.

As a compromise, may I suggest the following?:

In 2006, 744 professional historians surveryed by Siena College regard Bush's presidency as follows: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%. Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said that "In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Similar outcomes were retrieved by two informal surveys done by the History News Network in 2004 and 2008. The historian who organized the HNN polls said of the results: "It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners." In response to the "worst president" accusations, Bush said, "to assume that historians can figure out the effect of the Bush administration before the Bush administration has ended is... in my mind... not an accurate reflection upon how history works."

This version retains the Sienna poll and its results, while choosing the wording very carefully as not to be misleading. It also includes the HNN polls and gives their overall result while mentioning that the polls are unscientific, but also making sure to mention that Pulitzer and Bancroft winners participated. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, I think that's just about perfect. I agree that we don't want to give the HNN poll as much weight as the Siena poll due to the former's loose methodology; at the same time, HNN is still notable enough to be mentioned. The quote from the HNN guy addresses both of these issues. Since the paragraph goes on to cite Bush's response to "worst president" allegations, it might be good to note that the 2008 HNN poll did have a majority opining the same re Bush.

Was there a reason why you didn't include the other stuff from the Siena poll, i.e.: In that poll, historians were also asked whether Bush had a realistic chance of improving his rating; two-thirds said he did not.[156] "While time is needed to fairly and accurately gauge how well any president ranks with his predecessors, George W. Bush starts with a ranking that could hardly be lower," said Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College. Not a big deal, just wondering, since the quote addresses the same issue GWB himself mentions at the end of the paragraph: the fact that historians' views will change over time, with caveats. regards, Comesincolors2 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason why I didn't include that was due to the overall point of the paragraph. I didn't want to stray too far off topic. Happyme22 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Needed?

Is this part really needed in the perception section?

A March 13, 2008 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that 53% of Americans—a slim majority—believe that "the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals" in Iraq.[144] That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007 and the highest it has been since 2006.[144]

I don't see how this links to peoples perception of Bush, it's specifically the perception of the iraq war/republican policy surely? — Realist² 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this phrase in question, the paragraph discusses how the war is unpopular. This was placed there to provide additional opinions which have changed over time and indicate another view of the war. It is related to the content before it. Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, OK, all is good. :-) — Realist² 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to Include His Cocaine Abuse from 1972

This was a pertinent fact much publicized during his 2000 elections. This is left out to what I think exposes a slight bias. for an issue that was debated as such (there is another wikipedia article about this, but should be discussed and linked to on this one) during his first presidential campaign, i find it hard to believe that this fact is left out. GigaTronicus (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is patrolled heavily by people in favor of him, so it would be hard to add.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Rafael, unless you can provide evidence of bias in the editors maintaining this page, please refrain from making such accusations. In truth, it would appear you are confusing attempts to prevent this article from being an all out Bush Bash with biased editing. This article is actually written from a fairly accurate and neutral perspective. If you believe there is a POV problem, be specific. - auburnpilot's sock 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The short of it is there is not enough evidence to do anything meaningful with this tidbit. What happened was in 72 Bush was arrested and taken before a judge for something. Whatever it was was later exonerated from his record after he completed public service. It could have been an unpaid parking ticket for all intents and purposes. It was more probably either a DUI or a drug related offense. The Judge was a family friend of the Bush clan and firmly enmeshed in the local political climate enough to realize that doing something bad to GW Bush was going to be bad for his career. However even if it was something like cocaine possession, the fact that he seems to have gotten his life in order enough to be elected to the Presidency of the United States says that the exoneration was probably not a bad thing. Flatly, the overwhelming majority of American adults have done illegal drugs as some point or another and all this does is point out that drug use does not necessarily preclude someone from actually being successful. RTRimmel (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misspoke when I mentioned "The fact" above. what i mean to say is that i would prefer not to debate the truth of whether or not it was a drug charge. i would like to also make an issue out of including this information as it was included during his 2000 presidential election campaign. i personally have not done much research on the drug charge, and probably should. but i remembered from that election that this issue came up and was dismissed. it was aside from the DUI charge. many people had been talking about Bush being in trouble for drunk driving and cocaine as well. this is more of an appeal to this than the actual validity of it. that is not to say that it didn't happen either. i don't think that it would be a bush bash from the POV of the article, from me personally it might. however it's not a subjective statement if the article were to present the controversy that spawned from not only the DUI but the cocaine charge as well. GigaTronicus (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a minor issue and it did not prevent him from getting elected so I fail to see any serious significance to it. Unlike Bush's national guard service which got Dan Rather shot down so to speak, the drug controversy really didn't have any high profile victims so it may be worth one sentence and that's about it. And at one sentence I really don't see explaining it in a meaningful enough context to waste the characters. Again, nothing happened due to the accusations so at best it was a failed smear and the info is not sourced enough that I would feel comfortable including it. RTRimmel (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush is still drinking

The article declares he gave up alcohol in 1986. Then this must be some fellow who looks awfully similar to him... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ViQMkqnToA Bush is clearly seen in this June 2007 video footage, drinking beer. The section on his personal life should probably be changed to "he gave up drinking sometime in 1986, resuming sometime after that" since he is clearly actively drinking. Guest 13:51, 18 August 2008 (EST)

I think I would view The Boston Globe as a more reliable source than a youtube video. Happyme22 (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That was Buckler beer... which is non-alcoholic. If you know the brew it also (apparently) does the overflow thing that you can see in the video if your pour it out like that so there is little reason to doubt that. Head over to here for a more detailed look on Bush's drinking while in office. He has had a few that can be proven in the line of diplomatic events where refusal would likely have been not politically expedient and those don't really count. RTRimmel (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube link goes to a video which is meant to be anti-Bush. No mention is made that the beer is non-alcoholic. Regardless as to whether YouTube is a reliable source, that YouTube video clearly is not. SMP0328. (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can also look here [11] for more confirmation it's a non-alcoholic (and it even makes fun of Bush for the overflow so I'm sure it will be an adequately anti-Bush source). JEB90 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

Mentioning that Bush was nominated twice (by a single right-wing Norwegian politician) and failed to win the Nobel Prize doesn't seem notable to me. Anyone can nominate anyone for the prize to my understanding...as in I could nominate him for the Prize too. If these nominations were serious, then perhaps we should mention them, but there just doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about that Norwegian politician's nominations. Anyone else for removal of this content? Dwr12 (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Jimmy Carter actually won the Nobel Prize. That deserves mention. Let's wait and see if "W" ever accomplishes that. Jay Gregg (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am gonna put a mention of Razzie award for worst actor then. (Fahrenheit 9/11)

Not to mention basically anyone can nominate someone: (Being a politician is enough in this case) SYSS Mouse (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading up on the nominations for the two years, both had a 0% chance of winning and the person who nominated them was suspect. We either need to expand the sentence to include those two facts "Bush was unexpected nominated for a Nobel Prize in 2002 and again in 2004 but did not win in either case due to opposition from members of the Nobel Committee who opposed the various Wars started by Bush." Or remove it entirely. We removed the Sewage plant nonsense(at least until if it passes), this needs to go as well. As a post script, before Bush was nominated members of the committee that selects the award winner had spoken out against his actions. After reading, I'm unsure that the nomination itself was not a joke by the nominator and the nominator is the one who announced it as the Nobel committee does not announce who the nominees are. RTRimmel (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion of the Nobel nominations last year, Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 54#Nobel Peace prize nomination. It was agreed then to remove the mention of the nominations from the lead paragraph with sort of an understanding that this info could be removed from the article altogether later. I have no objections to removing the Nobel Peace Prize nominations mention entirely. Nsk92 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee, and why its important but not here.

The crux of the issue is that in almost every case a Presidential Candidate wins his "home" state. This did not happen in 2000. The late time it happened (prior to the 2000 election) was 1972. There are a variety of factors including limited campaigning, Gore's record, smears by 527's, and Bush's campaigning and there are all very important... for the Gore page. For the Bush page it might be worth a sentence, but for here it is borderline trivia as the Florida issue was more central for Bush's campaign. The fact that Bush won is probably noteworthy, but I don't disagree with earlier commentary that it is not noteworthy on the Bush page. At most a sentence such as "Bush won a clear victory in the south, even pulling Gore's home state of Tennessee, before the issue of Florida came to a head." On this page I don't think it merits more than that and we don't need to speculate that Gore would have won if he'd pulled his home state here, there is enough information on the page concerning the 2000 election to ensure that any reader can easily determine that the election was very close. RTRimmel (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. The user left a message on my talk page indicating that he was placing the sentence in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 article. I sentence such as the one suggested above may be in our best interest as well. Happyme22 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Update to economic section

FYI - the unemployment rate is now 6.1% (see this). The economic section should probably be updated to reflect this.--128.62.161.179 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stockholdings

Just curious as to the Presidents' interests and potential conflicts of interest with regards to foreign policy. In what companies does he, his trust, or his estate own shares in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.130.171 (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Razzie Awards

Despite opinions to the contrary, the Golden Raspberry award has been around since the early 80's and has been accepted by Oscar winners and other notables. It is accurate that Bush was given the award and it passes any notability requirement for an award. I don't care if you disagree with the reason it was given to Bush, I don't care if it was clearly given in bad taste, it was given to Bush and therefor deserves to be on that page. RTRimmel (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Political insults shouldn't be part of these types of articles, if any article. There's nothing notable about insults to President Bush. Many people have insulted Senator Barack Obama. Should those insults be added to his article? Political insults toward politicians do nothing to further any purpose of Wikipedia. Awards are meant to formally congratulate someone for doing a positive thing well. The Golden Raspberry is simple meant to insult someone and so is not an award. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an award in the traditional sense, but rather an "anti-award", but it is notable. Signs of distinction and notability may be both positive and negative and the key question is how much coverage they receive and how to factor in undue weight considerations. In this case I am not sure and do not have a strong opinion either way. There was substantial news coverage of the Razzie for Bush, but most of it was fairly short term. See GoogleNews results (recent news here[12], all dates here[13]). Perhaps deserves either a very brief mention (one sentence) or maybe just a category listing for Category:Golden Raspberry Awards. Nsk92 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SMP. Bush is not an actor, so someone giving him a "bad acting" award says more about the awarder than the recipient. Also, regardless of how we try to integrate it into the article, its non-political, off-topic nature makes it seem like slander, and therefore bias. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the Razzie for Bush was meant as a political statement; if it belongs somewhere in the article at all, it would probably be in the domestic perceptions section. I don't think the question of whether Bush deserved it or if the "award" was fair is particularly relevant here (an attack campaign, if sufficiently widely covered would have to be mentioned). The key question is if Bush's Razzie was the subject of sufficiently wide coverage and if including a mention of it would violate WP:UNDUE. I am inclined to agree with you that in this case inclusion is probably not warranted on WP:UNDUE grounds and because the coverage does not appear to be particularly wide. For Jacques Chirac his Ig Nobel Prize is not mentioned in the article about him but his page does include a category listing Category:Ig Nobel Prize winners. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here with Category:Golden Raspberry Awards. Nsk92 (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not like he's going to win a third term. Put it up be done with it. Why so srs? Obamanonymous (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Margin of victory misstatement.

"Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest for a victorious incumbent President up for re-election since Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in 1916." This is a senseless statement, and should be corrected or deleted. Suggested: Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest in American history for a victorious incumbent President, superseding Woodrow Wilson's margin of 3.1% against Charles Evans Hughes in 1916.Orthotox (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, your sentence is better. Did you make the change? If not, please do so; you don't need the talk page's blessing for a simple improvement of a sentence.--Abusing (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick observation

Just passing by - this reads like something close to a Bush campaign website. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean when editors routinely stop by, claiming both a liberal and conservative bias? Neutrality; the only thing that pisses off both sides. - auburnpilot talk 16:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, god with a small 'g', the article does not even mention the word 'God', not even once. How can an article on Bush fail to mention God or His personal relationship with him? (or is it his personal relationship with Him?) It's a fundamental aspect of his presidency. Sorry - this omission does not reflect NPOV ;) Nice try though, almost got me! hee hee (Barney-style chuckle). It reflects Bush staffers editing wikipedia all day long. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I am not a 'Bush staffer' and I favor adding information on Bush's relationship with God, detailed in the book A Man of Faith by David Aikman (ISBN 0849918111 - I own the book). Happyme22 (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So the article not mentioning God is proof that "Bush staffers [are] editing wikipedia all day long"? President Bush has repeatedly referred to God in a positive way throughout his Presidency. Wouldn't this article make many positive references to Bush's feelings toward God if it was being manipulated by "Bush staffers"? SMP0328. (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not if the "village elders" have anything to say about it. Why so srs? 08:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume "srs" means serious. We are serious here on Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Education information

Why isn't there an education information in his article? I think it would be rather consistent with other articles for the previous presidents.70.248.190.207 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Find that information here. SMP0328. (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2000 Election

The section: "As the election returns came in on November 7, Bush won twenty-nine states; one of the states was Florida. The closeness of the outcome led to a recount in Florida.[33]" is unwieldy. Consider changing to something like: "As the election returns came in on November 7, Bush won twenty-nine states including Florida. The closeness of the Florida outcome led to a recount.[33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.89.114 (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have changed the article to reflect such. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush term ends

Hi, I was wondering how this article knows for sure that Bush will cede power on January 20, 2009. Just wondering. 74.66.16.253 (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in the constitution. I have no doubt that President Bush will indeed welcome the new occupant of the White House and leave himself. Happyme22 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Stem cell research in this article again

I am inserting some comments into this pasted text from the source. My suggested edits are in CAPS. This needs edited for factual error. I would be happy to add sources and correct, but do not have the ability because the article is locked.

Federal funding for medical research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos through the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health has been forbidden by law since(SHOULD REALLY REFERENCE THE DICKEY-WICKER AMENDMENT HERE BECAUSE IT IS THE RIDER ON THE BILL THAT PROHIBITS THIS) the Republican Revolution of 1995.[101] Bush has said that he supports stem cell research, but only to the extent that human embryos are not destroyed in order to harvest additional cells.[102] On August 9, 2001, Bush signed an executive order (NO EXECUTIVE ORDER, ONLY SAID THIS IN AN ADDRESS. THE CITED SOURCE IS FACTUALLY CORRECT, ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE IS NOT) lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells,[103] but the ability of these existing lines to provide an adequate medium for testing has been questioned. Testing can only be done on twelve of the original lines, and all of the approved lines have been cultured in contact with mouse cells, which makes it unlikely the FDA would approve them for administration to humans.[104] On July 19, 2006, Bush used his veto power for the first time in his presidency to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The bill would have repealed the Dickey Amendment(THIS IS FALSE. IT WOULD NOT HAVE REPEALED DICKEY, BUT WOULD HAVE PERMITTED FEDERAL FUNDING OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH ON ALL CELL LINES. BEFORE THIS, ONLY THE 21 APPROVED BUSH LINES WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE. DERIVATION OF CELL LINES USING FEDERAL DOLLARS WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CELLS WOULD HAVE TO BE DERIVED USINF PRIVATE OR STATE FUNDING.), thereby permitting federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.[105] (Mperoski (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

The article is semi-protected. If you are using a new account, you need only wait a few days before you may edit such articles. SMP0328. (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gallup Poll Favorable Ratings

I found the Gallup article detailing favorability ratings of U.S. Presidents from Truman onward, and noted those results after the claim that Bush had the lowest poll rating ever. Collect (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could get into this. Given the Gallup polling methods during that time frame it was highly unlikely that 22% was actually accurate, but that's the number we have and I suppose we'll have to use it though in fact quite a few sources don't. It boils down to the margin of error, the 22% was +/- over 8 percent and the 28% is +/- about 3% so they statistically mesh a good percentage of the time. The 22% was also an outlier and the month before and after it were both significantly higher which if your a statistician means something I'm told. Bush has the lowest average approval rating of 29% again, +/- a slim amount (less than 2%) as opposed to Truman's average of 32% (+/- a larger amount) so it can still be said that Bush has a lower overall approval rating that Truman did. Truman tended to spike out with very low ratings and then stabilize in the mid 30% where Bush has had low ratings for very sustained periods (6 months +) now. But it gets overly complicated pretty quickly. Basically if I have approval ratings on a monthly scale of 35, 34, 36, 22, 33, 34, 34 or some such and you have approval ratings of 29, 28, 29, 30, 29, 29 which one of us is more popular? Additionally, Bush has the highest Disapproval rating (69% to Truman's 67% again with that accuracy thing I mentioned above). That sentence probably needs changed to something like. President Bush's term in office has seen the largest spread in change of public opinion of any President with a high of around 90% immediately after 9/11 to the lowest sustained approval rating of 29% in his second term. Bush has had the largest spread of any President and that's noteworthy. He has had the highest and that's noteworthy because it allowed him to get things passed that he wanted such as the Patriot Act. He has had the lowest sustained period of popularity and that is noteworthy because it prevents him from getting stuff he wants done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A claim was made which, om its face, was contradicted by Gallup itself. If you wish to say "greatest spread," that might be right. "Lowest" was, however, wrong. The added sentence was precise and correct. Collect (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lowest sustained is confirmed by Gallup so we can add that back in as well. RTRimmel (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Truman fact and put in another Bush fact. He has the highest disapproval rating on record so it is also precise and correct. RTRimmel (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be only fair to add that while Bush's low approval rating existed that his Democrat controlled congress was even lower at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.1.168 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Excepting that congressional approval, historically, is always lower in virtually every circumstance (and thus not notable at all) than the president and that this article is about Bush not congress, sure its fair. They have tied the lowest, and that certainly deserves to go on their page. RTRimmel (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article history at G.W. Bush

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 10#George W. Bush/Compromise → George W. Bush it was decided that George W. Bush/Compromise should be deleted, but in order to keep the article history for GFDL reasons, the page should first be histmerged into a redirect (material from that page may be in this article). I have histmerged that page into G. W. Bush, which had only one revision before the merge. delldot ∇. 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic collapse of 2008

The economic collapse we are currently undergoing is going to be one of the core features of the Bush Administration in the history books, just as Hoover is irretrievably associated with 1929 (whether fair or not).

It's time to put *something* about it into the article. I don't know what, though. 24.58.159.88 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence summary of the problem and what the adminitration has proposed. That should really be all that we say, though, because we have to be careful as events are still developing and will likely change (see WP:RECENTISM). In addition, this article is about George W. Bush and there is an article specifically dealing with this event. Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Grand Engineer? Rembember the Great Depression? Both were about President Hoover. Guess which one more Americans would associate with Hoover? George Bush's Presidency is going to be defined by 9/11, Katrina and this. In any other Presidency this economic collapse would be the only thing the President would be remembered for. (It is questionable that New York is going to remain the center of the financial world at this point... think about that, New York has been the defacto economic capitol of the world for the past 80 years) It will stand up to the 10 year test, or the 100 year test quite frankly. As the most significant economic event to have happened in the past 50 years, it needs more screen time... howver we should wait a short period of time to see what exactally happens with the 700 billion dollar bailout and the like. This is a terrible event. Katrina gets an entire section, any reasonable standard dictates that this event gets no less, especially considering that Bush favored the deregulation, and helped pass laws supporting deregulation, which can be considered a direct cause. RTRimmel (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That still is in violation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:SS. As of now, this is all that should be mentioned. If the problem is traced back to George W. Bush himself then of course this will become much more prominent in the article. But the events are still developing. And your statement of "George Bush's Presidency is going to be defined by 9/11, Katrina and this" is merely your own opinion. Happyme22 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regan's presidency is defined by the collapse of the soviet union. Lincoln's presidency is defined by the Civil war. Nixon's presidency is defined by watergate. But, you are probably right, those historians will gloss over the largest economic collapse of the past 80 years. No one pays any attention to trillions of dollars of debt. Obviously someone might have a crystal ball and look ahead and think that a 700 billion dollar bailout, largest in history, may be worthy of mention, but certain editors realize that this sort of ... average everyday 700 billion dollar bailout happens and that we unconconcerned citizens should ignored it! YEA! And the fact that Bush campaigned for, recommended, brought on Paulson as a treasury secretary knowing full well that he was very much in favor of signficant deregulation means nothing. For shame, trying to link someone who has advocated Deregulation and occupies the higest office in the land to a collapse caused by deregulation... I mean, people would think this article biased if you point out stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.111.57 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regan's presidency is defined by the collapse of the soviet union. What? Uhhh, The Soviet Union ended in 1991 and Regan left office in '89. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.173.153 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for sarcasm here. All that I am saying is that there is another article that deals specifically with this event. This article is about George W. Bush and, as I rightfully said above, if this event is traced back to the Bush administration and failures within it, then of course it deserves mention. And if the $700 billion government bailouts occur, that will deserve mention as well. But this article is not meant to provide an in-depth analysis of what is currently happening with the economy and who is to blame. Happyme22 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Unless there was a precident for it I suppose you would be correct unless a precident but without one of those on this very encyclopedia, I just can't see doing it. I mean, an assortment of Presidential articles discussing relevant issues that occured during their Presidencies seems rather silly when you talk about it. I'd use Iran-Contra to highlight it, but it seems to be rather buried and unlinkable from the Regan page... quaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.111.57 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how sarcasm seems to maneuver its way into your posts... I've already given my responses to your pushing, so I do not feel obligated to repeat myself. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. On the Reagan Iran-Contra issue, you will see that the affair is mentioned in the lead and given due weight in the article, with a link to a more detailed article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Bush bias

Please note that I do not belong to any political party, nor do I support any party. I do realize this probably comes up relatively often, but if this is brought up a lot, the frequency should definitely show there is a problem.
The tone of the article definitely feels more like it glorifies George Bush. I noticed that, for the most part, that it labels much more of the negative comments as "alleged," and the supportive comments as if they could not be contested. Obviously, some of the criticism of Bush has no basis, and some of the positive aspects are certainly valid, but this article is much more supportive of Bush than it is objective.
I'm not particularly supportive of Bush, but I always try to approach politics with a neutral standpoint. I can't claim to be completely unbiased (very, very few people can), but I have actively supported neutrality in politics for many years, and have had a lot of practice blocking out my bias. I strongly urge the editors of this article to take a better look at this article, and try to make a more fair assessment of George Bush's presidency. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Happyme and others consistently edit the article in a fashion to make GWB look as good as possible. These conservatives have taken over the page and even true, verifiable, well-cited edits are chopped up or removed.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please specify examples of bias in favor of President Bush in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was my comment here in TALK about why the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war removed from this discussion and the article George W. Bush? That alone makes me think that someone is filtering out any thing that might reflect negatively on the Bush-Cheney Administration. DuBose (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your comment was, but if it was not a suggestion or part of a discussion solely for improving the article, it was removed for that reason. As for your contribution to the article, it has to be referenced in order to be included in the article, as this is a "good article".--Abusing (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a subtle threading to minimize the man's failures and maximize his accomplishments, that's my opinion. Factually, lets look at the Hurricane Katrina section. The most noteworthy, often repeated, comment is Bush's quote of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Its ironic, because by any standard the job he did was miserable. I saw that sentence in the article awhile ago and moved on, much like Mission Accomplished its a point of criticism around the president, Mission Accomplished (one of the focal points of Bush criticism is buried half way down the article, removed from the lead). Its also not in the section anymore because someone removed it. A sentence was left in the lead stating Truman had the lowest approval ratings in history for days. I replaced it with Bush's record highest disapproval and it was moved out of the lead within hours. The word significantly was added before Bush's economic performance in 2003, and the source didn't support that. I don't think there is an obvious hacking, but the subtle minimization of valid criticism makes Bush out to be better than he is. People are quick to jump on the articles of NPOV when anything hints of Bush's failures, but the same voices remain silent with anything pro-Bush comes in. I dislike the double standard. RTRimmel (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the section on No Child Left Behind shows it in a much more positive light than it should. The only evidence given supporting it as a success is test scores, and that is a very poor indicator that it is actually working. One of the major problems is that some schools don't have the money to hire proper teachers and decent supplies. Due to the financial problem those schools have, they are unable to teach their students well enough to raise test scores. The No Child Left Behind act denies funding to underperforming schools, which causes the schools who don't have the financial ability to adequately teach their students to get even worse. Also, I have been personally effected by school funding issues. The No Child Left Behind act doesn't address the major problem, which is that schools don't have enough money, even after funding through No Child Left Behind. My high school had one of the best music programs for public schools in the state (in the top five I believe), and they had to consider severely cutting funding for the music program because of their financial issues. this is after shortening school schedules, laying off teachers, and many other money saving actions. This was only a couple years ago, NCLB was well established by then, and my school's test scores were well above average. There are also many other factors harming education in the country that NCLB doesn't address, such as lowered standards to help make schools look better.

Well I'm sorry to hear about your school and your own personal loss, however Wikipedia has a strict policy that does not allow original research, meaning that all content in this encyclopedia needs to have come from third party, reliable sources. So if you can find a source for the funding issues, then some reference to it may deserve a mention. With that citation, you may also want to check out the No Child Left Behind Act article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-In the area where it says "... and has said that he has consistently noted that global warming is a serious problem..." consistently should be taken out, as his stance on it was never very consistent. In the citation, the president himself is the one who said he consistently said so, and that isn't a reliable source, considering politicians will say that kind of thing to save face.

Agreed, and I've changed the article to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-In the sentence "Despite emphasizing safeguards and remaining open to other plans, Democrats attacked the proposal to partially privatize the system." Attacked should be replaced with opposed. Attacked has a more negative nature, and therefore adds a more supportive feel to the the proposal. A more colorful vocabulary isn't as important as showing neutrality here.

Agreed, and I've changed the article to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-In the sentence "Hurricane Katrina, which was one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, struck early in Bush’s second term. the part saying "... which was one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history..." should be taken out, as it is not a fact, nor can it be proved.

Actually, it is a fact. See [14][15][16] Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-The word alleged should be used with more care.

How so? Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing one thing or another, but my main point is that there are some things in the article that convey a sense of opinion instead of fact, and that some references should be checked. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course neutrality is important. I am an administrator and principal author of the Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Pat Nixon articles (all featured) so I think I know a little something about NPOV. I do not think that the article is overtly biased in Bush's favor, however IP 66 raised some good points above and I thank him/her for doing so.

As for the Bush Doctrine in the lead: I have no problem inserting it into the lead, however the manner in which it was inserted, by User:DuBose, is unacceptable. Quote: "The Bush administration initiated the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war or "preventive" war in 2002 & 2003." First of all, the phrases Reagan Doctrine, Carter Doctrine or Nixon Doctrine are not encompassed by quotes, which implies a coined or unfamiliar term. Secondly, there is obvious anti-Bush POV, as the term preventive has quotes around it, but preemptive does not; that implies that preventive is a falsehood. Third, the war in Afghanistan began in 2001. Also, the word 'and' should be written out as 'and', not abbreviated as &. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the grammar or punctuation, then fix it, but don't remove the information. The Bush Doctrine is a fact of history and is also documented in Wikipedia. I can not believe the bias that we are seeing here. Peace, DuBose (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is is well documented in history, and you will see that the current page version reflects that. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong; the sentence as it stands at this moment is a manipulation of the truth. In truth, preemptive war was the justification of the attack on Iraq, and was not due to 9/11. You are starting to do a swiftboating of this history. The preemptive war on Iraq was justified by false and misleading intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, which the UN weapons inspectors had repeatedly denied existed and begged the Bush-Cheney administration to tell them where these supposed WMDs were located. I reject your analysis as historically valid. DuBose (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made no analysis as far as I know... the WMD controversy is discussed in the "Iraq" section. Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a NASTY pro-Bush bias: there's a section titled "Civil liberties and terrorist detainees". That should, of course, be "Civil liberties and detention of *alleged* terrorists". One of the main issues is, in fact, the question of whether detainees are terrorists or not -- in many cases the only evidence that they are is allegations by the administration! It's quite true that "allegedly" is being used only for criticism of Bush in this article, and not when it is appropriate but would look bad for Bush. If you want to go further: "President Bush has consistently stated that the United States does not torture." Given the absolute proof that the United States has been torturing, cited in the Waterboarding article, that should be "has consistently claimed". 24.58.158.178 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a statement by the president. Whether or not his statement is factually correct is up for debate. Think of it this way: the president gives statements to reporters, etc.; this was one of those statements. Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The pro-Bush bias is clear and there is an attempt to manipulate the history here to exclude the Bush Doctrine, and the actual meaning of that doctrine. One time they remove something because it is not an exact quote, next they want to put in a milder statement that is also not a quote. They are starting to look like the swiftboaters... makes me wonder why they don't use their real names. DuBose (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the article Bush Doctrine. In the introduction, it reads,

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq); a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way."

From this we gather that the doctrine was introduced after 9/11, not in 2003, to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, so that needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the article describing the Bush Doctrine uses the phrase 'preventive war' as opposed to 'preemptive war'. Since the article on Wikipedia that contains all details of the Bush Doctrine uses the word 'preventive' then that is the word that this article should use as well. Now I would like to remind everyone of WP:LEAD, which directs editors to make the lead a summary of the article and give each subject proper weight within it. Bogging down the lead about the Bush Doctrine and what it contains, why it was written, and what purpose it serves is not in our best interest, and especially not in the best interest of the article. It certainly deserves mention in the lead, however per WP:LEAD and WP:V, I propose something similar to this, which links to the article and gives readers something to click on to read more if they are interested, but saves the details for that article. It also keeps facts in check regarding the War on Terror and both invasions. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While the article about “the Bush Doctrine uses the phrase 'preventive war' as opposed to 'preemptive war' (your words) may use the phrase “preventive war;” the fact remains that a Doctrine that advocates military action against other nations’ actions “before they are fully formed” requires a judgment call by the administration; and is a subtle difference of semantics in this context. Perhaps the descriptive term “premeditated” would be more appropriate.

The issue of documenting the chronology of the events is necessary in an encyclopedic history. The fact that the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, preemptive war, or premeditated war was declared or published on September 17, 2002, a year after 9/11, and six months before the invasion of Iraq is important to the history and how a reader may interpret what happened. To meld the relative time intervals tends to make the reader confuse or merge the premeditated invasion of Iraq with 9/11 and the military action against Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan… which is a manipulation of the history. Peace, DuBose (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Any reference to any version of the Bush Doctrine should refer to all versions of it. To me, "preemptive war", "preventive war", and any other similar phrase, to describe the Bush Doctrine is original research. SMP0328. (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the use of "preemptive war" is original research. A GOOGLE search on "preemptive war," in quotes, brings up 298,000 hits, including the Washington Post, NYT, and our own beloved Wikipedia Preemptive war. Preemptive war is now in the common vernacular. Even George W. Bush spoke of “preemptive action” at West Point, and “act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.” To split hairs over phrases in common use is useless. DuBose (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it's more helpful to describe the Bush Doctrine (all versions) than to simply refer to it as "preemptive war". "Preemptive war" is not a clear phrase. That's probably one of the reasons there are multiple versions of the Bush Doctrine. Better to give a clear description, than use a vague phrase. SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, use a clear description, but not in the lead of this article. Per WP:LEAD and WP:V, it is suffice to mention or link Bush Doctrine in the lead, as was done here. This is not the place to describe the Bush doctrine, be it preventive war, preemptive war, premeditated war, or what have you because WP:LEAD tells editors not to put too much undue weight on one subject. The lead is supposed to provide a general overview of the subject, in this case the entire life of George W. Bush. If we want to hammer out details of how to describe the Bush Doctrine, we can do so that-a-way. Happyme22 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Introduction a note that there are multiple versions of the Bush Doctrine should included with any reference to that policy. That should be enough to avoid confusion in that part of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple versions? What are you referring to? I know of only one version of the Bush doctrine, but there are different terms used by different people to describe the purpose of it. How about this: we implement this, as it correctly identifies the timeline of the foreign policy events and a link to the Bush Doctrine. Interested readers can click on the link and read more about it. That satisfies WP:LEAD, is factually accurate, abides by WP:NPOV, and seems to be a pretty good compromise. Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple versions of the Bush Doctrine. So simply referring to the "Bush Doctrine" is vague. SMP0328. (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that for our job (mentioning it in the lead) it is suffice to say 'Bush Doctrine' or as I propose, a link to Bush Doctrine, as that is the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject and most common term. However, in the article Bush Doctrine, feel free to bring up there being more then one (very interesting -- you learn something new everyday!). Happyme22 (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Polls

Three reputable recent polls show lower approval ratings than Gallup. These should override Gallup, so I mentioned them. Other polls show historic lows of 22% or even 19% and deserve a mention.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Gallup accuracy and you quickly find out that they are not nearly as... accurate as they used to be. They are modifying their methodology to make their polls more sensational (and that's the polite way to say it) so they no longer have the gold star credibility that they used to for those in the know. Other polling organizations, including some that are listed presently, are more accurate and so they should be included instead of having an artificial goal of only Gallup. I know I have been a big Gallup supporter in the past, I have been reviewing polling results and they were among the least accurate that got it right in 2004 (not even in the top 10 which is saying something, certain university polls got MUCH closer than they did) and their numbers have been consistently higher/lower than others(others which specifically have proven more accurate). Alternatively, if you really want to keep them I'd suggest the 69% disapproval as it is the highest disapproval they have on record (which was in the Lead and got pushed down into public perception, then again so did Katrina, Mission Accomplished and virtually every other significant thing Bush has been involved with in the lead). Either way, we need to lose the artificial Gallup bias we have now in place of including more accurate polls. RTRimmel (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All polls are bias and cannot possibly adhere to NPOV and WP:Bias.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RTRimmel. Gallup is no gold standard, and it's oversampled Republicans for years if not decades. Happyme and others would just prefer to use whatever poll lists the highest approval rating for Bush, I imagine.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I take all polls with much more than a grain of salt. I suggest the article either refer to no polls or multiple polls from reliable pollsters. No one pollster should be considered the be all of how the people feel about anything. SMP0328. (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have several points to make here. First off, in the lead of this article we have chosen to go with polls conducted by the Gallup Organization, perhaps the most reputable and trustworthy polling agency in the world. There we give two numbers: a high and a low according to Gallup. Since we have chosen Gallup, it would be inconsistent and wrong to give other polls there, too. Simply because other polls may give a slightly lower number does not justify them "overriding" the Gallup polls, as you suggested. Back in March, when I was working on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, it was agreed that we stick to polling organizations when citing poll numbers of Barack Obama, rather than using those from newspapers/news organizations (i.e. NYT, CBS, WaPo, Fox, CNN, etc.) "though ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and even FOX/Opinion Dynamics polls show 26% for the same period, and other polls show historic lows down to 19%" is simply prolonging the idea that Bush is a bad guy. "Even Fox"? What is that supposed to mean other than Fox has a right-wing bias? Unacceptable.

Secondly, please take a gander at WP:LEAD. The lead is to be a concise summary or overview of the entire subject at hand, in this case the life of George W. Bush. WP:LEAD instructs editors not to weight down the section in certain areas, in this case the polls. Two sentences for the polls are too much, considering that many other aspects of Bush's presidency (for example PEPFAR) are not even mentioned. And I'm okay with PEPFAR not being mentioned as long as the principle of a general overview holds constant. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean to be concise, then clearly the most prevalent number is 26%, not Gallup's, and pretending anything else is is partisan and intended to make GWB look better than he deserves. Yes, absolutely, FOX News does have a conservative bias. No question about it. Five minutes of watching their programming would tell you that. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallup was chosen because it has been a reliable standard in the past. If you've kept up on the news and done any research, Gallup presently is A: Less accurate than its peers, B: Been shown to use less accurate methodology and methodology that is known to be less accurate. So in short, Gallup is banking on their name and hoping people don't research it. I don't believe that the current Gallup numbers are accurate enough to merit a bias towards Gallup especially when other more accurate numbers exist. And our Lead removed too much information to be practical. We don't mention Katrina, the Economic Collapse, PEPFAR or other significant events in the Bush Presidency to maintain an artificial streamlining. Per WP:Wikipedia:Article_size we are way over the 50k (currently 130K) recommendation yet last time an effort was made to hit that goal the article was truncated to the point of being useless. Presently, per WP:Lead we are a paragraph over, and should "explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist" Now, I'll note that editors have removed nearly all of the controversy, which might be considered interesting considering that Bush is a highly controversial figure, so per WP:Lead we need to include those. We have removed the 'most important points' of which there are several in order to make the section too concise and out of compliance with WP:Lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to know about Fox news bias there is a nice article in wikipedia about it, try this as they consistently show up with a "right-wing" or more accurately a conservative bias. RTRimmel (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are examples of media bias in both directions. No reason for mentioning only one network's bias. SMP0328. (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason. Pretending even for a second that FOX isn't clearly biased is intellectually dishonest and indicative of having the wrong motives. Rupert Murdoch has stated that he likes partisan media, claiming that FOX being conservative is akin to the partisan newspapers of the nation's youth. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel is Conservatively biased. NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN are Liberally biased. There are no objective media. SMP0328. (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense, and conservatives have hooted about a supposed liberal bias for decades only to shift the objective media to the right. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You sir, have shown your bias. SMP0328. (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see how a viewer of FOX News might think that. When I watched it, FOX News would bring out its conservatives for its panels, then bring reporters from the media in as well. This miscasts as liberals people who are supposed to be objective. That is wrong, and more people should stop giving FOX the time of day by refusing to show up for their programming. Anyone looks liberal next to people like Krauthammer. But besides that, I'm not biased, I don't watch TV news really, and being called biased by a GWB article cop doesn't mean much. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you know so much about me... oh wait, you don't. You seem to believe that because I don't agree with you, I must have a right wing bias. You are mistaken. You are the one with the bias. SMP0328. (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rafael, you need to assume much better faith and stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of bias or slander in favor of President Bush. I happen to think that President Bush has done some very good things, but I also think that he has done some very bad things; just because I do not agree with you does not mean that I am a biased loon. I am administrator also.

That said, with all due respect, RTRimmel is mistaken regarding article size, and please allow me to respectfully correct you. Wikipedia articles are measured by readable prose size, not overall kb count. This article's readable prose size is 53 kb, well within guidelines as outlined at WP:SIZE. Ronald Reagan, a featured article, is 59 kb. I would also like to comment on content in the lead, as was brought up by RTRimmel: to me, the lead is fine. However, if there are objections, may I suggest the following: cut down info on the 2000 and 2004 elections, thus freeing up space to insert Katrina, PEPFAR, etc.

To resolve the poll number discussion, perhaps we could remove the specific poll numbers from the lead but retain: "During his two terms he has had nearly the highest and the lowest domestic Gallup poll approval ratings of American Presidents". Then specific poll numbers can be added/updated in the "Public perception" section.

I would also like to reiterate one of the points I raised in my last post: back in March, when I was working on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, it was agreed that we stick to polling organizations when citing poll numbers of Barack Obama, rather than using those from newspapers/news organizations (i.e. NYT, CBS, WaPo, Fox, CNN, etc.). I think that may be a good idea here as well, as Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup, etc. are professional organizations. Of course news organizations have their biases, but to single out Fox is unacceptable and, frankly, this article (moreover this article's lead) is definitely not the place to do it. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The approval rating info has always been in the lead, so it's unfair and dishonest to move it further down the article just because now things are looking worse. Research 2000 and ARG are also professional polling firms. Refusing to admit FOX is biased, or more biased than other sources, is quite laughable.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I suggested at all; perhaps I should have clarified: I am suggesting removing the specific poll numbers because there are so many poll numbers and we editors cannot agree on which polling organization to use, if any. Doing that, while retaining "During his two terms he has had nearly the highest and the lowest domestic Gallup poll approval ratings of American Presidents", would clear up our disagreements and allow us to present all necessary information in the body article. If you want to argue if Fox is biased or not, this is not the place to do it!! We are here to talk about George W. Bush, not Fox News. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you were suggesting, and it's still dishonest, and it's still not right. Gallup's clearly not the most accurate, if three independent reliable source polls agree that GWB's approval rating is lower than Gallup's. These polls deserve listing in the lead, just like Gallup used to. And the fact that multiple other polling firms have also recorded lower approval ratings than Gallup suggests Gallup is wrong. It makes no sense to elevate Gallup above other polls, and you're not going to get away with trying to hide the numbers. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about: "During his two terms he has had nearly the highest and the lowest domestic poll approval ratings of American Presidents". I would think that many polling organizations rated him very high after 9/11, as Gallup did, thus we have now eliminated "the Gallup factor" and the sentence is very broad, as sentences in the lead should be. Specific poll numbers from specific poll organizations belong in "Public perception" section, because we are supposed to generalize the subject in the lead. Rafael, your continued insistance that I am trying to "get away with something" or make the president look better is, frankly unwarranted, and not helpful. I am trying to abide by WP:LEAD and resolve this discussion; I am offering solutions rather than criticizing others. Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I already offered a solution; I edited the article and I don't think the current state is a big problem. I think we should provide solid numbers just like the article used to. It doesn't make sense to suddenly remove the numbers when they turn more unfavorable. We can take the numbers out if you agree that GWB has the lowest approval rating ever, though - because ARG and Research 2000's results would say he does. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I am agreeing with you, because what I proposed contains the words "...the lowest domestic poll approval ratings of American Presidents". Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you said "nearly." And we have citations for being the lowest, but not the highest, so you'd need to find that. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a citation for his being the highest: [17]. And we remove "nearly". Are we good? Happyme22 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's try to include all the polls in the public perception section. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've made the change. Regarding the other polls, like I said before, back in March, when I was working on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, it was agreed that we stick to polling organizations when citing poll numbers of Barack Obama rather than using those from newspapers/news organizations (i.e. NYT, CBS, WaPo, Fox, CNN, etc.). I'm open for ideas and concensus may favor not doing that, but consistency between high-profile politicians is also important. All input is welcome so that concensus may decide where we go next. Happyme22 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't see why you removed all the citations. I think the citations need to go back, though the text has changed. And due to the significant concordance between the news organizations' polls, I don't see how we could arrive at a more accurate number. This isn't Jeremiah Wright. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Worst President in history

I've removed the statement "He is sometimes referred to as "The worst president in U.S. history"" from the last paragraph of the lead. I don't know if it merits inclusion in the article, although it is already included in the "Public views and perception" section, but it certainly doesn't merit inclusion in the lead section (with blogs/opinion pieces as sources). When opinion pieces are used a source for such a contentious assertion on a BLP, it needs to be introduced as "John Smith has noted that he believes George W. Bush is the worst president in history". We cannot state as fact that Bush is the worst president in history, but we can state the fact that some believe he is (and note who). - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with AuburnPilot, I think he's understating his case. I can find good sources that "some people believe X is the worst president in history" where X is any president since 1900 (and most of those before too). Sourcing, especially in a BLP, is not enough - for ultra high profile figures like GWB you can source all kinds of tabloid crud. It is simply absurdly POV (WP:UNDUE) to put this kind of nonsense not only in the lede, but anywhere in the article. "Worst president" is hardly a scholarly or measurable concept and the kind of folk in references that use such terms are either speaking very informally or are unreliable by virtue of stupidity. Putting my admin hat on a for a moment, I would also say that I think that AuburnPilot's revert is obviously exempt from the three-revert-rule. Even presidents should be protected from such juvenile shenanigans. CIreland (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be the first time I have ever accused of being "too nice". ;-) But in all seriousness, I completely agree. Anybody can spend less than five minutes on Google and turn of dozens of sources that list dozens of presidents as being worse than Bush. You can also turn up sources for practically every president in modern media history that refer to them as the worst president. It's simply not a notable accusation or one that is specific to Bush. Hell, try Google's news archive and search for news items during the 90s for accusations of "worst president in history". You'll see many leveled at the previous president. - auburnpilot talk 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Bush has received much, much more criticism than the vast majority of past presidents. A poll of historians from this year reveals that 61% believe Bush to be the worst president ever, and only 4% of the historians polled would even put Bush's in the top two-thirds of presidencies ever. Then there's the vast sea of sources calling him the worst ever. Trying to equate Bush's unpopularity with Clinton's, or almost any other president's, is absurd. There is no way you'd find a comparable number of sources calling Clinton the worst ever. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Any reference to Bush being the worst President in history should be removed. It gives the false impression of being factual, when it is (and can only be) opinion. How about James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Andrew Johnson, or Jimmy Carter? Each of them has, from time to time, been considered the worst President in history. I know that material is in perceptions part of the article, but it is presented as definitive. I think it's enough to have the polling of Americans in general and let each reader decide for himself which President is the worst, rather than pushing the reader to choose George W. Bush for that infamous status. SMP0328. (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true, and probably notable, that Bush seems to have attracted a level of hatred that has rarely been seen in a long time. The core of Bush-haters seem to hate him with an intensity greater than that felt against Nixon or Johnson, and perhaps even FDR, though maybe that's just recentism. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is more than just a phrase, it clearly exists and is probably notable in its own right. But it doesn't belong in the lede. -- Zsero (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The scales that Historians rank presidents with are fairly accurate and are used in an academic light. They use a standardized and 'fair' methodology that achieves consistent results. The fact that on these scales Bush ranks badly is more of a measure of Bush's qualities as president rather than their methodology has suddenly become suddenly flawed. To decry them as pure opinion demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding as to how they actually work and the massive amount of information required to come to the results. The 'opinion' of a Presidential Historian has to carry some weight because they are an expert on the field with many years of research, much like the 'opinion' of a mechanic or the 'opinion' of a doctor. RTRimmel (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court Appointments

The sequence of events is incorrect.

Roberts was first nominated to replace O'Connor. He was then re-nominated to the position of Chief Justice, when the sitting Chief Justice died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.64.131 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary, and says nothing about the sequence. Still, maybe it can be worded better. -- Zsero (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I broke separated the material into John Roberts and Samuel Alito parts. This makes it clear to which nomination is being referred at any given point. SMP0328. (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Length

Does anyone find it ridiculous that this article is longer than the one about George Washington? Or the American Revolution? Some of the sections are just bloated. Some kind of trim should be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.35.27 (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What parts of the article do you think are "bloated"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with the size of this article. Wikipedia articles are measured by readable prose size, not by comparing them to other historical figures. This article's readable prose size is 53 kb, well within guidelines as outlined at WP:SIZE. Ronald Reagan, a featured article, is 59 kb. Happyme22 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I unfortunately don't know how, but could someone fix the picture? It's currently a pile of shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.142.183 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That act of vandalism has been removed. SMP0328. (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Link

Shaky shouldn't be a link, it links to some sort of pop singer which has nothing to do with Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.28 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please state location of that link or whether it has been removed. SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. William Avery (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation Error

This article has GW's name pronounced as:

/ˈdʒɔɹdʒ ˈwɑkɚ ˈbʊʃ/

I presume that this is simply a language interpretation problem and not intended as a shot against Mr. Bush. It has no meaning in its present form. Please correct it so it has meaning to english speaking readers of Wikipedia.

Thank you. 69.149.169.48 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That has something to do with pronunciation; it's not an error. SMP0328. (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the pronunciation according to the International Phonetic Alphabet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a POV push?

LOTRrules wants a sentence in the Foreign policy subsection of the Presidency section to read as follows (boldness added by me):

In response, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and an international coalition invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, which has in turn lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Afgahnistanis.

I believe the bold text is a POV push, because it paints those wars in a negative light without any reference to the positive aspects of those wars. Whenever I have removed the bold text, LOTRrules has restored it. I want to hear from other editors as to whether the bold text is a POV push. All comments are welcome. SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel it is a POV push. That's one lasting part of GWB's legacy. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's "part of GWB's legacy", the bold text portrays those wars as simply killing thousands of people. What about removing Saddam Hussein from power? Wikipedia requires neutrality. The bold text is not even close to neutral. It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine if Bush is a good or bad President, or whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are good or bad. SMP0328. (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The bold text doesn't say anything about GWB being good or bad. It doesn't pass any judgment on the war. It neutrally gives an idea of how many people died. I think, though, that you're against it because you would rather people not think about it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not POV push. How can you justify a war in a "positive light"? This is neutral. If we get rid of this then we should get rid of the "3000 people that died in WTC" sentence - isn't that POV push? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore ask yourself the question did I say it was he who was good or bad? It's his legacy as much as Watergate was in Nixon's time. It's just fact. It may be a blow to his career but Watergate was a lasting legacy of Nixon's and so are the war casualties. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 23:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an American centric thing. The rest of the world finds it rather disturbing that we've actually killed more Iraqi citizens than Saddam killed. We should mention it only because otherwise we are whitewashing the situation. We can expand some additional details about the pros of the war, but this central fact is rather important to a great number of people. RTRimmel (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the information about the number of dead Iraqis, only to the wording. As written, I agree with SMP that there is a neutrality issue in only highlighting what is unquestionably a negative aspect. It would be better to have a full stop after "...and later Iraq" and expand on specifics in a following sentence or paragraph. It could be as simple as "...and later Iraq. Although _insert something positive_, the wars have lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Afgahnistanis" (or is it Afghans) . - auburnpilot talk 23:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not calling for a whitewash. I'm simply asking for NPOV to be followed. Provide a balance of the aspects of those wars. To highlight only a negative aspect or only a positive aspect is a POV push. SMP0328. (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you put in a source to balance it out then instead of clipping it? You seem to bring the hammer down on anything anti-bush so fast that its a blur these days. How about:

In response, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and an international coalition invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. The wars overthrew the respective governments of those nations and has in turn lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Afgahnistanis.

RTRimmel (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That part of the article now says (boldness not in article):

In response, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and an international coalition invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, which has in turn lead to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with some polls suggesting up to one million dead, including tens of thousands of civilian Afghans.

I think that provides both viewpoints of those wars in a neutral fashion and specifies who or what previously controlled those countries. SMP0328. (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's "Afghanistanis". You were right the first time, the second you make them sound like carpets(!) Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Afghan (as in List of Afghans). Afghanistan.org also states "People of Afghanistan are called Afghans, not Afghani" but we're getting off topic. - auburnpilot talk 00:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In the real-world I heard people call them "Afghanistani", like "Pakistani" but yes we should stop this now. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Movie "W."

I ended up at this page while looking for information on the movie "W.", and I think it would be reasonable to include in this article a mention that a biographical film by Oliver Stone was produced about him. I think this fact is significant enough to at least include a mention (if not a whole section) about it as well as a link to the wikipedia area about it. I know that I, as a wiki-user, would appreciate someone adding that. Coroloro (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Try this article for information about that movie. SMP0328. (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coroloro. and the above mentioned article is only a movie article not info ON the GWB page, and it should be there.Editor^U.S.A. TIC 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Born again

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Bush being religiously "born again." This strikes me as important enough to be included somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.51.222 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a source for that? I've never heard him referred to by that term. -- Zsero (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say he fits the criteria, but he hasn't said it himself. http://www.pbs.org/previews/frontline_jesus_factor/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be a discussion of his religious views and how they impacted his life and politics. --76.124.174.253 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)ALBALB

He said he was councilled by Billy Graham and that caused him to become a fundamentalist born again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.195.241 (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Got a source for that? -- Zsero (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"George Bush has not said directly that he was ever born again. He has often said he was pointed on the path to God after a discussion with evangelist Billy Graham in 1985." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6115719/ RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So that's a "no". -- Zsero (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't said he was "born again," but there's certainly enough confirmation of the fact around to add a sentence about his religious awakening, or something to the effect, in the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All religious people have ups and downs in their level of commitment. "Born again" is a specific experience that some Christians claim to have had, and that distinguishes them from other Xians and from non-Xians. As I understand it it's inherently subjective, and if a person doesn't say he's had it nobody else can possibly know. Claiming it of Bush without his own confirmation would be not just OR but outright speculation. So what are we left with? The article should certainly mention that he is a Xian, not just in the infobox. The conversation with Billy Graham has been quoted so extensively that it's surely notable in this regard. Cooperman's WaPo piece (ref 2) should probably form the basis of whatever ends up in the article. But we cannot use the term "born again". Carter was born again; as far as we know, Bush was not. -- Zsero (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Has he left already?

According to an official White House biography there were fifty stars on the US flag when he left office... --➨Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they're just anticipating. There is no possibility that a new state will be added before 20-Jan-2009, and there's even less possibility of a state disappearing by that date. So we can confidently state that when he leaves office, whether that happens tomorrow or on 20-Jan, there will be 50 stars on the flag. 'Course if Obama is elected they'll have to sew on seven more... -- Zsero (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to this article

Is it true that if you vandalize the page George W. Bush, you can get arrested? Please do not delete this. It is a question I have that I want answered. Don't get me wrong, I like Bush and I think he is a good president. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not true. It is not against the law. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you vandalize it by inserting a threat to the president, you might wind up being arrested. Vandalism of this article in general, though, not involving other illegal activity, will result only in Wikipedia-based sanctions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The law and constitution have little say these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmccann (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What the %#*&( is that supposed to mean? -- Zsero (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bush vs Richards - Incorrect figures in this article

I am surprised that this average article is locked. Not even the figures are right. Bush won the election 1994 with 53,5% towards Richards 45,9%. (not 52% vs 47% as this article says) sources: http://www.texasalmanac.com/politics/gubernatorial.pdf http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581479/George_Bush.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddle12345 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Zsero (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the Financial Crisis

Recently I put in

By September, the situation worsened to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,

Which was quickly removed by Zsero due to sourcing so I added in more sources, then SMP decided that his opinion was that only Some people believed that this was the worst financial crisis since the great depression, without providing sources, and now Happy has removed it again because of some third arcane reason. The sentence is sourced and accurate, I can start sticking in significant numbers of additional sources from all of the major US newspapers as well as all of the major international newspapers, quotes from hundreds of government officials, presidential candidates, nobel prize wining economist, university professors etc. I have not done so yet as I don't think we need 10 footnotes for something this obvious but that is where this is heading. Are we absolutely sure that this degree of scrutiny is required for anything? I doubt seriously that any sentence on this page would hit the level of verification that is now being expounded by some of the editors on this page. To be clear, it is the worst financial crisis because economics is a numbers field and the numbers point out that it is. When you successfully argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then I'll listen to your argument. RTRimmel (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and this is a big problem with the article. Maybe just quickly mention the measure used, in order to silence protesters. The policing in this article is ridiculous. I'm going to work on the article too next week while on vacation. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether the economy is the worst since the Great Depression is subjective. It's inherently an opinion, no matter how many people hold it. I have no objection to the Great Depression reference, as long as it's clear it's an opinion, not a fact. SMP0328. (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the economy is something that actually exists and can be measured in finite terms such as unemployment, homelessness, housing foreclosures, the federal budget deficit, the national debt, etc. By these standards the economy IS the worst it has been in living memory. It is no more subjective than the amount of nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere is "subjective". I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to refer to the above statement as biased toward the Bush administration and thoroughly dishonest. And no, I'm not a liberal democrat. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Only time will tell whether this opinion will prove to be correct. If a significant number of recognised experts express this opinion, then that is worth putting in, but it remains an opinion of some. If it becomes almost unanimous then it can go in as "generally regarded" or some such language, but still not as fact. Oh, and when sourcing this, don't use the Grauniad piece quoting Soros, mostly because it's from March, and the text you want to use refers to September. Use contemporary sources. (It also pays to remember that the 1929 meltdown happened under Hoover, but by 1932 the recovery was well underway, and it didn't really become the Great Depression that resonates with us until FDR made it much worse. We may not be able to judge the real significance of the current event until 10-20 years from now.) -- Zsero (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, time has told. The Bush presidency is in its last year. The pattern is already there. The history has already happened. A significant number recognized experts do express this opinion. They are professors of history and economics at colleges all over the world. They have already been cited. Ridiculous. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FDR is responsible for the Great Depression? Now THAT is opinion. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have two sources, one from the New York Times and one from the Chicago Tribune that both say that Bush and his administration recommended significant regulatory overhaul in the housing financial industry in 2003, but Congress did not take any action. The point is that there is plenty of blame to go around, and blaming this solely on Bush and his administration is irresponsible.

As Zsero said, if a very large number of experts deem this to be the greatest financial crisis since the great Depression, then it can go in. We can't go by what the presidential candidates are saying, as they will say nearly anything to get elected. Let's also remember that this is an article about George W. Bush, not the financial crisis, thus this article should adhere to WP:SS. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, we should include that, however as it sits we don't even mention the fact that this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression. There are far to many economists stating that this is the worst crisis and the polling of economists I've seen places the number who believe that its the worst financial crisis at over 90%, and those that don't think its close or tied with the worst... and that poll was in September before the bailout and the dow posting massive losses (2 Trillion dollars worth in one day). If it hasn't gone higher than this by now I'd be amazed. Given where the numbers are, I don't really think you are going to find any credible economists who will disagree at this point. Bush did recommend overhaul, it didn't get implemented and he didn't aggressively pursue it, but he did mention that it was necessary. So did a lot of people. Bush does not even receive the lion's share of the blame for the event happening, his reaction is noteworthy within his article however. But you have to call a spade a spade which is all I was doing. This needs to be made into its own section and frankly I don't see a high chance of the three of you allowing such an event to come to pass so I haven't bothered yet as I can't even get a sourced sentence about this included. And I was quoting Billionaire financiers and economists, not Presidential candidates though they are in fact correct. And Financial Crisis are a quantifiable thing, its not actually subjective as they can look at a series of number (and must do so) to declare this, and comparing those numbers against other crisis numbers provides that this is the greatest financial crisis since the great depression by a rather significant amount. The taste of a cheeseburger is subjective. The beauty of a painting is subjective. 1 + 1 = 2 is not. RTRimmel (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And Happy, your sources aren't exactly strong. Nancy J. Thorner is a known partisan conservative and she glosses over every bit of Republican fault to chastise the democrats. You or Zsero would shot me down if I attempted to put in such a blatantly biased source to back my point, so I'll expect that you had no intention of using this one as anything other than an example of what kind of sources to avoid. The NYTimes article is a bit more balanced, however it glosses over the fact that the Republicans were in firm control of congress at the time so given their ability to dictate the agenda the fact that this went nowhere is far more telling. The article lacks context as well as the fallout of the results of what actually happened, but its a better lead off. RTRimmel (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to tie me to Zsero, SMP, and others as if we are some sort of clan that opposes all that Democrats do and heap praise on Bush. It is simply false, and I work for myself alone. If I agree with others, it does not mean that I always will.

That said, RTRimmell, if you are going to tell me that the New York Times is not reliable, then there are major problems. If anything, that publication is biased to the left. I'm guessing that since that particular article was written in 2003, it is assumed that "Congress" means "Republican controlled Congress", just as articles written today say "Congress" and imply "Democratic controlled Congress". Congress did nothing with Bush's proposal, but Bush proposed more regulation.

RTRimmel, I am inclined to agree with you, especially more so after today, that we are probably in the greatest financial struggle since the great depression. The markets tanked today, which is truly awful. To be fair, however, I've added that Bush proposed more regulation in 2003, as cited in The New York Times and outlined by the International Herald Tribune. Of course the administration shares part of the blame, but they called it in 2002/2003 and Congress (both Repubs and Dems) did nothing. Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy's edit provides a neutral presentation of this economic crisis. President Bush is not singlehandedly at fault (he's also not free of blame). The article should reflect his role in this mess, without any whitewashing or hyperbole. SMP0328. (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is funny, yes Bush proposed more regulation and with the full power of the Republican Controlled Congress at the near height of Bush's own popularity got exactly nothing done. The article isn't bad, it just doesn't actually say thing other than Bush mentioned regulations to congress and in 2003 that was fine, but in 2008 you should probably find an article that deals with the resolution of those requests. You won't find one because Bush went no where with them, but you could at least try, they did but got tabled as vague in the Finance committee I believe and the fix would have caused regulation that Bush and the Republicans opposed. It could also be noted that Congress discussed regulations. Wall street discussed regulations. Economists discussed regulations and so did everyone else. It was an open secret that this was going to blow up because it was an open secret that the mortgage backed securities were of questionable value and investors hate assets with questionable values. And your second source gives a detailed account of why Bush's treasury failed to deal with the situation and tangentially mentions that Congress stopped him and goes right back on blaming the treasury and Bush. Yet you place the blame from that entire article on Congress when its clearly blaming the treasury. I'd at least find one blaming congress, they are out there if you want to look. But you like to hold yourself above the POV push while blaming others. Quaint. I think you get looped in with the two other fellows because its quite obvious that you come down like a ton of bricks on any edits made against your precious conservatives (FA Regan, Palin etc) but remain quite quiet when something positive comes up. Just an observation after reviewing all too many of your posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.26.71 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And undent. Happy if you always go one direction I don't know what you are going to assume people will think but whatever. Futher you always seem to be much quicker to jump against poorly sourced negative infomration on conservatives than poorly sourced positive information against conservatives. Moving back to the article, the NYTimes article is out of date, and by this I mean that the article contains incomplete information and while that would be fine before the situation occured, afterwards I would expect move detailed information such as your new second article. The second article is a good read, and quote: "The administration did push hard on Capitol Hill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to find itself stymied by Congress. But the administration's intense focus on fending off what it foresaw as a looming housing crisis did not extend to the proliferation of fiendishly complex mortgage-backed securities, said Harvey Rosen, an economist who served on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, briefly as its chairman." I think is the key paragraph that you used for your refrence, and Bush did attempt to regulate the housing market, and he was close to the mark, however the mortgage backed securities were actually much more signifigant to the crisis than the actual home loans were. Mind you, fixing the loans would have eventually fixed the securities, however the existing securities would still have collapsed and we would still be having this crisis (albeit at a lesser level). He also did not use the exisitng powers of the Treasury and its various departments to actually combat the issue, instead pushing a series of increased regulations (which the Republians disliked) that would have prevented home loans to certain groups (which democrats opposed) and it went nowhere in congress. This was a poision pill, there was no way that either side of the isle was going to swallow it and even if they did it would not have stopped the financial crisis. But he was close. I personally don't think this is even close to 100% Bush's fault. I give him credit for not recognizing the full extent of the problem and not using the full powers of the President (which, as your source points out, are quite considerable) to slow them. Could Bush have prevented this? Possible but doubtful only because no one could have anticipated the exact degree of problem that this caused and even if he had forseen it I doubt that he could have placed enough priority into the mortgage-backed securities to do anything meaningful about them. That said, the failure did occur on his watch (as your source points out) and his reaction to the failure is signficant. I do think that we should include what specifically he did wrong, and you can read the financial crisis main article about that and break the financial crisis into its own section becaues its going to get worse before it gets better. RTRimmel (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting points... I don't think that simply because the NYT article is from 2003, it is out of date. There are many other sources referenced within this article prior to 2003, and the point of using this source is to identify that Bush attempted to push regulatory reforms though Congress.

Perhaps something such as the following could serve as a nice compromise:

Many economists and world governments determined that the situation became the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Bush administration recommended and pushed for significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. financial housing market in 2003, though these requests went unanswered by Congress. The administration, however, could have done additional work to curb excesses in the housing market and address the mortgage-backed securities problem. In September 2008, President Bush proposed a financial rescue plan to buy back a large portion of the U.S. mortgage market.

I've put it in. I hope it is a nice compromise. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sentence "The Bush administration recommended and pushed for significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. financial housing market in 2003, though these requests went unanswered by Congress. " And it does not match up to the source all that well.

To his credit, Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation of the mortgage giants. But experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world.

The administration did push hard on Capitol Hill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to find itself stymied by Congress. But the administration's intense focus on fending off what it foresaw as a looming housing crisis did not extend to the proliferation of fiendishly complex mortgage-backed securities, said Harvey Rosen, an economist who served on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, briefly as its chairman.

Bush pushed to regulate Fanny and Freddy per the source, not the housing market as a whole. Now while Fanny and Freddy are inaruagably critical to home lending in the US, they do not originate bad loans they buy them. A critical piece, but not what our article says. RTRimmel (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The way he gives speeches

I noticed that the way Bush messes up words / invents words in his speeches hasn't been documented on his wiki page. This characteristic of his really sets him apart from other presidents and other public speakers in general. Here's a website with quotes of what I'm talking about if you haven't heard him speak this pretty much sums up what i'm talking about.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

I'm sure there's tons of other sites dedicated to just this single facet of Bush out there. I think I'll remember him forever as the president that sounded {the proper rhetoric does not come to me right now} whenever he talked, but if say... 100 years from now, someone comes to the wiki page and there's no mention of it, it's kind of like that part of G.W.'s history is cut out from the book =/ So why isn't the subject addressed at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetxo (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bushism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubya speaks Spanish, right?

I noticed a passing mention of "[Jeb] Bush (speaking fluent Spanish)...". I've heard G.W. Bush speak Spanish twice, once impromptu. A U.S. President or state Governor having at least some command of two (or more) languages seems worth noting, and should be at least briefly mentioned in the education section of their articles, or possibly their infoboxes.

I was curious to know how well the Bush brothers speak, and the aforementioned brief mentions should allow the reader to gauge that, if known. I find myself as interested in that Jeb Bush could speak fluent Spanish as in that he unwittingly resurrected Republican Spain.

-SM 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeb's Spanish is certainly fluent enough that he went to Mexico to teach English, and that's where he met his wife, who presumably spoke only whatever English she had learned at school. His Spanish was presumably good enough to woo her and convince her to marry him and come to the USA with him. Dubya has probably not had quite so much opportunity to practise his Spanish, but it is reported that he does speak it at least tolerably well. That would be worth sticking somewhere in the article, with a proper source. -- Zsero (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lowest Presidential approval rating

This article says President George W. Bush has had the lowest approval rating of all the presidents, but I know for a fact this is untrue. Off the top of my head Jimmy Carter has had a lower approval rating.

Not true according to the article on United States Presidential approval ratings. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, off the top of your head is not a good enough reference for Wikipedia. If it is true, please find a citable (reputable) source to justify. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bush is "the most disliked president since polling on the question began in the 1930s." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/01/AR2008110100850_pf.html

Tsurtkoohs (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Change wording regarding approval ratings in intro.

The approval-rating sentence is a bit vague and anecdotal, and does not provide useful information about the dramatic rise and fall of Bush's popularity.

• • • • • • • • • current version:

During his two terms, he has received both the highest and the lowest domestic approval ratings of American Presidents.

• • • • • • • • • suggested version:

Shortly after 9/11, Bush enjoyed the highest domestic approval ratings ever recorded for an American President - around 90%. Since then his ratings have seen a nearly steady decline, hovering around 50% at the time of his reelection - and by fall 2008 he suffered the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for an American President - around 20%.

• • • • • thanks!

I think your version is a lot better than the original, though might be too much info for the intro. What do others think? Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~.Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice

I've just created an edit notice for this article (MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-George W. Bush) based on the notices used on the Obama, McCain, and Palin articles. The wording is standard, but we can always add additional, brief points if necessary. A note reminding everyone that Bush remains in office until January 20, 2009 and that Obama isn't actually a US president until then might be beneficial. - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that a note stating the Bush is still president would be in the best interest of the article. I created an edit notice for Dick Cheney's article very similar to the one that you did (MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Dick Cheney). Happyme22 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

2004 votes totals incorrect

I'm sorry if this isn't how or where I'm supposed to post this. I'm new to talk pages. I just wanted to let you know that there is incorrect information on this page that I can't edit to be correct since its protected.

In the 2004 presidential candidacy section it says: "Bush carried thirty-one of fifty states for a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (a record 101.04 million votes to Kerry's 98.03 million votes )." The totals should be 62.04 and 59.03 instead. This user has made this change on several pages, but all the others appears to have been corrected.

Thanks Fredct (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've just reverted back to the version that gives the correct percentages. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Enlisted?

I'm curious about why it states Bush was enlisted but his rank was 1st Lt? Wouldn't he have been commissioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JE (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It says he enlisted, because that's what he did. That's a verb, not an adjective. It has nothing to do with his rank. He was a fighter pilot, and therefore a commissioned officer. -- Zsero (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You need a commission to join as an officer, somewhat different than the way one would 'enlist' into the military. -JE (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The verb "to enlist", when used without an object, means "to join up". The specific method one uses isn't relevant. You're confusing this with the adjective "enlisted", as used in the term "enlisted man", which refers to a particular kind of serviceman, one who is not an officer. -- Zsero (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is further misleading. The specific method is certainly relevant. A commissioned officer becomes such not through the act of "enlisting". The verb "to enlist", when used in the context of "joining up", has a specific meaning with relation to the armed forces. A commissioned officer, such as a 1st Lt, becomes such through "commissioning", not "enlisting". "He was comissioned" or "he was enlisted" are the only two appropriate phrases that may be used here. Bush was not a warrant officer, so the text should be changed to "he was commissioned". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.222.90 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Which dictionary makes this distinction? -- Zsero (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lame Duck?

The press here in Ireland, not least The Irish Times, are referring to George W Bush as "a lame duck President". Is this opinion held elsewhere? Should it be in the article? Millbanks (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He is that by definition. Actually, some people have been calling him that for the past four years; the definition is loose enough to technically permit that. But there's no question that he is now a lame duck. No insult need be intended. -- Zsero (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

While I by no means approve of President Bush, I believe that there are more neutral ways to state this. "Lame Duck" has a negative connotation that I think violates Wikipedia's standard of NPOV. If there is some instance where a third party calling George Bush a lame duck is notable enough to place in the article, I think it should be allowed. But I don't think the reference mentioned by the original poster satisfies this criterion.  Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Once his successor has already been elected, everyone calls him a lame duck. He has already said that his most important job now is to smooth the transition to his successor. It's not negative at all — that's what "lame duck" means. There was a negative tinge to calling him that earlier. Technically a person is a lame duck as soon as it is known that he will never again face an election, which in Bush's case has been since 3-Nov-2004; but with four years still in him, most people would not have called him a lame duck. But now, with fewer than 11 weeks left in him, there's nothing negative about it. -- Zsero (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is negative or not is debatable, but that's beside the point. I don't see any place for it in an encyclopedic article. What, are you going to put "Lame Duck" under his portrait? I think it is enough to state that his term will end in Jan. 2009. If there is some information that could be added to the article for which the term illustrates a point, I'm all for it. Jrobinjapan (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lame Duck is a widely accepted political term. I realize the term sounds weird and strange if you aren't accustomed to hearing it. It's only negative when used to describe a president who's not at the end of his term in office, like a president who can't work with congress, or a president that keeps having his vetoes overridden by congress. All presidents are lame ducks when there is a president-elect, by definition. It is just a matter of course, a term as valid as "president-elect." No one would put it under his portrait, as it's a temporary designation. He is a lame duck president till the inauguration. VictorC (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the original question, should we put in the article that the Irish Times and possibly other papers are calling him a lame duck, the answer is obviously not. He is a lame duck, so it's not at all notable that they're calling him one. Should the article itself use the term? Only if it comes up in some valid context. If something happens in the next 11 weeks that makes the term relevant then we shouldn't refrain from using it out of some sort of sense that it's somehow inappropriate. But it's quite likely that we will never have occasion to use it. -- Zsero (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, today's (Irish) Sunday Independent refers to George W Bush as "perhaps the lamest of all lame ducks". I'm not sure if that's notable. It is of course POV. The article, on page 16, is by Paul Harries in New York and is reproduced from the (UK) Observer. Millbanks (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. A lame duck is lame because he has no political capital left. An outgoing president facing two hostile houses of congress, who have just been emboldened by a victory of their own, is very lame indeed. Clinton was just as lame in his last days, and so was Bush Sr. But don't confuse "lame duck", which refers to political power, with actual power. Bush is still the president, and has all the powers of that office. He's no caretaker, as a defeated Irish government would be. Bush Sr. sent US troops to Somalia during his lame duck period; he consulted Clinton about it because it felt like the right thing to do, not because he had to. A defeated Irish Taoiseach would have to have the incoming Taoiseach's permission to do something like that. -- Zsero (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-Retirement Activities

Given that Bush will leave office in January 2009, has he given any indication of what he intends to do after his retirement from federal office? Calibanu (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)User Calibanu

I've no source for this, but I've read somewhere's he'd like to be MLB Comissioner. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't have a source for this, I heard on the news earlier that he plans on moving back to Texas, and building his Presidential Library. MOOOOOPS (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong date of birth for "W"

George was actually born on July 6, 1946.

It's listed here as July 4, 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.33.67.126 (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done fixed in Infobox and lead. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

2004 margin of victory sentence

Quoting the article: "Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest for a victorious incumbent President up for re-election since Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in 1916."

This is talking about the popular vote. This sentence makes no sense - on several counts.

1. The popular vote has no bearing in the electoral college system, so why does it merit mentioning? The elections of 2000, 1888, and 1876 illustrate this.
2. The margin of 2.5% is smaller than the 1916 margin of 3.1%, so why is Wilson's margin mentioned here? To say it's the "smallest since," when it is actually "smaller than," seems silly. A slightly better election for comparison would be to the 1884 election where the "margin of victory" was 0.3%.
3. More to the point, in the prior election in 2000, Bush had a "negative" margin in the popular vote. How could a positive margin be "closer" than a negative margin?

It seems to me this sentence be removed. Is there something I'm missing? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The narrow margin does deserve some mention. I'm against removal. The important point is that Bush underperformed. The sentence deserves a rewrite, not deletion. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question "How could a positive margin be "closer" than a negative margin?" ++Arx Fortis (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The second term president typically has a decent margin of victory. Bush did not meaning that bush had no mandate and if you'll notice... he didn't exactly achieve much in his second term. How about, "Bush's 2.5% margin of victory is the second smallest margin of victory for a second term US President." The margin is academically noteworthy and so we should probably mention it. Its also the smallest margin of victory for any US wartime president which is arguably more significant in an academic light. There is a viewpoint exposed by certain portions of the academic community that says that no US wartime president will ever lose a reelection bid. So far they are 100%. RTRimmel (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the wording "second smallest margin of victory" is any better. How can it be the second smallest margin when there are three presidential elections (mentioned above) where the "margin" was a negative percentage? I'm not trying to downplay the significance of the results, as they are noteworthy. I think we simply disagree on how it should be worded. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Then provide wording. The difference between constructive criticism and what you are doing is that at the end of the day the constructive criticism will leave us with a sentence we can use. 71.29.219.200 (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the "negative" percentages involved a reelection. I believe the disputed sentence is referring to the margin of victory for a President being reelected. SMP0328. (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that elections and reelections are different birds and trying to draw direct comparisons between the two isn't as useful as one would expect. Bush's reeletion (regardless of his first election results) is the by the second smallest percentage of all 2nd term presidents. That is a statement of fact. If you talk to political scientists they will draw distinct differences between the election and re-election of a president. Not every president gets a second term. Most presidents who win a second term do so with a fairly substantial margin. Bush did not. Its noteworthy. RTRimmel (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{editsemiprotected}} There is an error in Para 2, Line 2 - the marriage year should be 1977, not 1978 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgtuohey (talk • contribs)

Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Should Obama be shown as successor yet?

I've seen other countries show president-elects as the successors before they actually enter office, like Japan, and I don't see why it ought to be different here. Could somebody explain why Obama cannot be shown as the successor? Zazaban (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because it is merely an assumption, though a good one, that Obama will be the successor. For all we know, Bush could die tomorrow, resign, or otherwise vacate his position. That would make Cheney his successor. Obama could step down, die, be killed, or otherwise find himself in a position that prevents him from taking office. That means he wouldn't be the successor. - auburnpilot talk 04:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is based on facts, not merely what's likely to occur. Until Barack Obama is sworn in as President, he has not succeeded President Bush. SMP0328. (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Zazaban is wrong that it was done on the Japan page, for the simple reason that Japan doesn't have fixed terms — a new PM takes office as soon as the old one is ready to leave, generally no more than a week after the election or party room vote. And theoretically the new PM could take over even sooner; in Australia, Gough Whitlam flew to Canberra the morning after he won the 1972 election, and insisted on being sworn in with a 2-member cabinet! It was crass of him, but nobody disputed his right to it. In the USA, however, George Bush remains the president for the next 11 weeks, and not just as a caretaker but with all his powers intact. He can do anything on 19-Jan-2009 that he could on 21-Jan-2001. So no comparison from Japan is appropriate. -- Zsero (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for messing with status quo. Lioux (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse the nit-picking. Nobody has been elected President 'yet'. Only 349 Democrats Electors & 163 Republican Electors have been elected, to date. Those folks will elect Bush's successor, December 15. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Despite what Wikipedians seem to have decided, Obama and Biden are not president elect and vice president elect, and won't be until at least 15-Dec, if not until 6-Jan. The difference is that if something should happen to Obama between now and 15-Dec, Biden would not be guaranteed of taking his place. The DNC would have to pick a new candidate, and the D electors wouldn't be bound to honour that choice; if they didn't, the election would be thrown to the House. After 6-Jan, if Obama is not able to take up the presidency on the 20th, Biden automatically takes his place. I'm not sure what happens if it's between 15-Dec and 6-Jan; I suppose Congress could tell the electors to vote again, but I'm sure it wouldn't. -- Zsero (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Biden replaces Obama if this occurs after December 15th (the electoral votes being casted). Cheney would merely annouce Biden elected on January 6th. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not a sure thing yet, and the infobox shouldn't say that Obama is DEFINITELY his successor, but does anyone think it would be fair to have the infobox say something like "Succeeded by: Barack Obama (presumed)", which notes that it's not a done deal yet? -- NClark128 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:CRYSTAL. -- Zsero (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Crystal Ball" policy looks like it doesn't rule out events that are "notable and almost certain to take place". That Bush is expected to be succeeded by Obama is something that I think is definitely worth noting and has a basis in fact (the election results, documented by multiple news sites), and while Obama succeeding Bush is not a 100% sure thing, it does seem highly probable at this point. So I guess the question is just HOW likely something has to be before making note of it in the article. -- NClark128 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Barack Obama page lists Obama as Bush's successor, but it says "elect".Noz92 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't. -- Zsero (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In the President of the United States article, it says "[George Bush's] second term expires at noon on January 20, 2009, after which he will be succeeded by Barack Obama, the president-elect from the 2008 presidential election." Following that same guideline, should that sentence be removed? Should we have something in its place that reads "President elect Barack Obama is expected to take office ... " or "Bush is expected to leave office...". In the info box, instead of "succeeded by" should we have something that reads "President in waiting" for the time being? RiseRobotRise (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed that article. I left in the reference to Obama, but softened the prediction to an "expected", and removed the bit about how he will succeed Bush, which we don't know. -- Zsero (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the criteria set by the community on how we should go about writing our articles about future successors and such, by the same guidelines, wouldn't calling Barack Obama the "President-Elect" in itself be presumptuous (albeit it being a good one)? The United States President isn't picked by the popular vote, or the popular vote by each state for that matter. Its the electoral college that decides on who becomes the President (and President-Elect for the time being until that person becomes President). Last time I checked, the Electoral College does not convene until December 15th. It has been argued here that Obama can't be shown as Bush's successor just yet because an unexpended event may occur which could possibly have someone else land in that office after Bush and/or before Obama. Under this same guideline, it is possible (yet extremely unlikely) that enough state electors may switch to vote for someone else (like any third party nominees, or previous democratic or republican candidates) making that other person President-Elect, even though personally I am 100% sure Obama will be chosen by the electors, there's a virtually small chance of that occurring since our laws do not prevent this sort of thing from happening. RiseRobotRise (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but it's not worth edit-warring over. Common usage, including in some US statutes, is to refer to the winner of the general election as president-elect, in anticipation of the formal vote in the Electoral College, and the consensus on WP is to adopt that usage. Live with it, it's only for another month. BTW, even after the Electors have cast their votes, if something should happen to Obama before 6-Jan Congress can probably recall the Electors and ask them to vote again. All it would have to do is retroactively change the date of the election from 15-Dec to whatever date it likes. -- Zsero (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)