![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
I have restored a minor note which was in the article a few months ago. Since it refers to a description made by Bush of the nature of his own presidency, it seems highly relevant & noteworthy to me. I can't begin to imagine why it was removed & could find no mention of it on the talk page. Kasreyn 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It is taken rather out of context. The quote was, "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true." This indicates a focus on war issues, not an affirmation of war. The "war president" mention in the article implies that Bush considers himself pro-war -- this creates a rather negative connotation which is not very consistent with the intended meaning in the interview. -- The Other Other 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
one sided bias liberal headliner with no real depth or meaning( 153.42.161.199 07:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
I think that this needs some explanation as to context -- its use in the article makes it seem like Bush is describing himself as a "hawk," when I think the fairest interpretation of Bush's actual quote regards his role as that of a President in warTIME. Maybe a citation to the full quote is enough, but there is certainly a risk of non-neutrality in including this at the very beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.8.70 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, December 1, 2006
The Iraq War section is listed under the President's first term, but much of the information it contains carries over into the sceond term. Any suggestions as to how it should be organized? Jpers36 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it is certainly worth putting into its own section. Possibly at the end?
Isn't there an update needed in the war section? The Baker (spelling?) comission recently declared the Iraq strategie as failure. That should proabably being mentioned, especially since Bush himself said that a shift is needed, basically admitting his failure. The war is kinda lost, just like vietnam was lost and now its official. We germans and many other peoples around the globe warned the 'mericans before and we said that the politics where based on both: Lies and illusions. I still remember that axis of weasels joking. So who's the weasel now? Whining around because they lost something like what? 3000+ soldiers. Didn't they now that in wars soldiers happen to die? 3000 aren't that many at all. They shouldn't whine that much, but rather finish the mess they started properly...
The classification of the war as a 'success' or 'failure' is undeniably political, with recent reports from the press indicating that Bush himself suggests that the situation is winnable, or contraiwise, the situation is not an abject failure; contrasting the opinions of Gates (Rumsfeld's replacement) and the general democrat leadership, who take a much more pessimisstic (or realistic?!) view of the situation in I-raq: that it is an absolute failure. In order to remain neutral i think we should show both sides of the coin and report the views of what each vested interests says about success or failure and let the reader accordingly decide the issue. Neutrality in such issues in paramount. ToyotaPanasonic 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The Economic Policy section is only three paragraphs? Would anyone mind filling it up with some more info? Fephisto 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that it's a big deal or anything, but, when coupled w/"social services" and in the context used here, social security is a common noun meaning, "a field of social welfare concerned with social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment, families with children and others."-- Evb-wiki 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've always thought it was a severe deficiency of this article to not even mention Will Ferrell. As for Family Guy, it is very important because it is one of the few animated shows to criticize Bush directly. The Simpsons does so in disappointingly oblique ways (e.g., "Commander Cuckoo-Bananas"). Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A quick mention of criticism and popular culture critique wouldn't be a problem, but if we dwell on it and provide every example of criticism, it becomes non-notable and a case-in-point of weasel words and POV pushing (if you want an example of how "including all information" can turn into a case of POV pushing, try Reforms under Islam (610-661)#Animals). Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to have an article titled Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, which would include both dramatic and comedic works, as well as anything else? We could then provide a link to that on this article, most likely not in the criticism section but somewhere else. Jpers36 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This was debated before and it does push a POV. AuburnPilot talk has stated "Since I've been quoted above, I figured I'd respond. This information is definitly not NPOV." Also it doesn't need to be inserted again because it's already covered in the category section of George_W._Bush. ViriiK 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
On True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai, regarding the Japanese in the Second World War, 1941, on History Channel, I heard that some of the first Americans captured were in Dutch East Indies {&/or Malaya | Singapore}, for the Texas Guard { Tejas Guard?}. I suppose that the Air Guard would have been created a few years later.
The actual river is " Tamarkan". Japanese for [number] five is " go". The Japanese pronounced " speed-up" as " speedo".
It is currently on, & from 1100 - 1300, Pacific, 1900 - 2100, zulu time.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178
What is going on? Do we want criticism even included in this article? I have slowly seen negative material disappear from this article.
Criticism is mentioned in the introduction "he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, [.........]", yet the entire part in the main body of this article on criticism was removed.
If my interpretations are correct then I must call for *'ALL'* criticism to be only referenced in the "see also" section. Even though to me that goes against npov. And in fact this is already discouraged in the NPOV article, but arguments that criticism is so large that it needs a separate article, I can understand.
If we are going to separate criticism to a separate fork article then so be it, but then we must move *all* criticism to this article (e.g. Controversial acts, Hurricane Katrina, ...). No-one can say that one stance of criticism is unworthy of inclusion in the main article. At this point it is very unorganized, some criticism in the main article some not in the main article. -- ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Criticism articles are inherently POV forks and must be merged back in. I've tagged Criticism of George W. Bush for merging back into this article. theProject 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why were the criticisms removed? All of its content was verifiable, factual information. The quality of this article is no longer up to par with other high profile politicians. The value in Wikipedia is that it offers an opportunity to cover issues corporate media channels can't or won't cover.
How dare anyone call this neutral....it makes me sick.-- 69.66.25.4 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This section has been here long enough without anybody taking the initiative to work the contents into the article and it has already begun to collect repetitive/useless information. It's time to either move the information into the article or to the talk page per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. -- AuburnPilot talk 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A possibly minor point...the introductory paragraph makes no mention of the contested 2000 election, which is in contrast to the "only candidate to win the majority vote in 16 years" bit regarding the 2004 election. If that is notable enough for the introduction, objectively shouldn't the "only candidate since 1888 who won despite losing the popular vote" also be noted there? (This may seem trivial, but my impression on an initial read of this article is that it lacks coherency as a whole, and this is just one example).
Traumerei 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The two statements almost appear contradictory due to a lack of clarity. If he is the only candidate to win since 1888 after losing the popular vote in the 2000 election how can he also be the first in 16 years to win the majority vote in the 2004 election?
This logic makes it sound like Presidents for the 16 years prior to 2004 had all lost the popular vote, which seems to not have occurred since 1888.
Basically too confusing. They should be grouped together and clarified so as to to appear conflicting in nature.
You should change the picture, that one is ruined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sixest ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the Very Long template to the article. This article IS getting really really long. Infested-jerk 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
... isn't actually a sentence. "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946), 43rd President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and re-elected as president in the 2004 election." Do we want some form of "be" verb in there? Ryanluck 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
someone fix the part where it says he is the brother of jeb bush, the governor of florida, he is now the EX governor of florida.
In response to a reversion earlier today, I would like to point out that Donald Rumsfeld has confirmed his resignation, on the day after the 2006 elections. Therefore, I feel it is relevant to this article that we add a link to Robert Gates as he is currently the Secretary-elect.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Enough information now is factually proving that George Bush has been the most incompetant US president in history. When will the Wikipedia article reflect this? Universal reactions to the damage he and his administration are doing to the rest of the world can no longer be considered merely "opinion", and information needs to be placed here so that visitors can be adequately affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.107.210 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 December 2006
Most Americans would say Jimmy Carter was. Nixon was corrupt but he was effective. Decato 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Nixon has a number of sucesses including opening relations with China. Watergate was a scandal because of the coverup. Carter failed to take down Iran when the U.S had just cause and he left our economy in shambles.
Decato
21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
December 2006 (UTC)
There are currently 2 sections in the article titled "Foreign policy", and I think it would be best if one of them would be changed. I noticed this after editing one section and then right after it took me to the other one (I thought I accidently deleted some info). -- Ted87 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Criticism and public perception," y'all's need a period after the sentence that begins "From time to time,." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.175.65 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
I have made quite a lot of edits in Wikipedia to try to make it a work of reference rather than a list of ephemera, including in particular a lot of edits to the George W Bush article, most of which have been accepted by the Wikipedia community. The particular Guideline involved is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly, which says:
For some reason, some people seem to object to my changing "George W Bush is President..." to "George W Bush was inaugurated as President on <date>". I don't know why; the meaning of the two forms is the same today, but the latter form will still make sense in the future.
As there is a clear guideline, it should be followed. To say that other articles don't follow the guideline is irrelevant: they also are incorrect and need work. Wikipedia is infested with "recently", "currently", etc. This isn't a case of different opinions; if you disagree with the guideline, start a discussion to have it changed, don't just ignore it because you don't like it.
I don't know why there are so many objections to changing "is president" to "was inaugurated as ..."; perhaps someone would enlighten me on why they think it is so important to use the transient form?
For a much more extreme case of transient language, see the more trivial article on Tamsin Greig before and after my edits.
I write this as I am being threatened with the 3 reverts rule for simply trying to bring this article within Wikipedia guidelines.
Pol098 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick comment: Kchase does raise a legitimate point, namely that the relevant page is indeed a guideline and not policy. It also contains, as its very first sentence,
I happen to agree with the idea behind Pol's revision because we know for a fact that the sentences in question will no longer be true within just over two years. However, calling on policy and saying that a particular person who prefers the other version is not following it is extremely far-fetched. - Che Nuevara 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the opinions to date:
In discussion in other places regarding the guideline in general (not just this article), nobody considered that it should be revoked.
I suppose this discussion looks ridiculous here, as it is mainly about one sentence. However, there were a great many explicit and implied references to soon, at present, etc., and one that had already become out-of-date, with nobody noticing it. I made a considerable number of changes: see the batch of successive changes I made starting 09:28, 1 December 2006 Pol098
Pol098 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it appears that only one editor want the article to remain in present tense. Therefore, I think it safe to say that a consensus has been reached and the tense of the article can be changed. I would leave the intro line at the moment though, pending further discussion. -*- u: Chazz/ contact/t: 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that any hard-copy version will have to avoid the use of the present tense, even if it is appropriate for an electronic version. - Che Nuevara 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Following the discussion I started on wording that assumes the date we are reading the article, here is an example of something that got left in even after the event, making the article on this very prominent subject out-of-date. In November I found an old sentence like "A hearing is scheduled for September 28", and changed it to "A hearing was scheduled for September 28; the outcome was ???.[86]"
I thought that the many vigilant eyes would pick up and fill in the ???. but it is still there. Search the article for "September 26" or "???" to find this. Pol098 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I found a comprehensive, unbiased biography of George W. in a 1999 issue of Rolling Stone [8]. It's too early to have had a position on Bush's presidency, and yet has lots of details, especially on his oil company ventures and his investments. Is this useful to anybody who wants to incorporate it into the article here, or just add it as a link? Emiao 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this article be refactored such that the Presidency area is no longer split by term. Following the Ronald Reagan article, I think there should be a section about the 2000 and 2004 elections, followed by a section describing Bush's presidency as a whole. I may start work on that this evening. Jpers36 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am just starting to review the plethora of Bush articles. Could any of you who are familiar with them tell me if there is any mention of the 'WMD Joke Controversy' from the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner?
This one:
Thanks! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
We all know Bush is not the best leader, but you don't need to crap on it. It's not a toilet. A lot of people knw it's not really him now either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SBKT ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
This article is way too long - 106kB. Clearly moving some of the material into other articles is a task which will need to be done vary carefully - both to maintain an article with NPOV that represents the consensus view on how best to describe Bush, and to avoid being reverted as vandalism! Maybe moving some of the material about the policies of Bush's government; the sections on domestic, economic and foreign policy seem (to me) to be the best targets, and they already direct the reader to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration; maybe an Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration should be added to make Bush - the policies trilogy? Inner Earth 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Just browsing through this article I never seem to read anything that implies GWB ever did anything bad. I know the goodness / badness of George W. is a touchy subject, and I have my own biases, but I really don't think this article is balanced the way it is.
Case in point:
Bush returned to the oil industry, becoming a senior partner or chief executive officer of several ventures, such as Arbusto Energy ('arbusto' means bush in Spanish), Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy. These ventures suffered from the general decline of oil prices in the 1980s that had affected the industry and the regional economy, but he remained active through mergers, acquisitions and consolidations of his firms.
Which sounds to me like he never did anything wrong, that the businesses suffered soley due to circumstances beyond his control and he acted honorably throughout. Which might all be true, but I know there's no consensus about that, I don't think there's overwhelming evidence to support that POV, and there's certainly no evidence cited. On the other hand, the Harken Energy scandal isn't mentioned at all. If the reason for the failure of Dubya's oil ventures is suggested with no supporting evidence, shouldn't the evidence suggesting an accounting scandal at least be mentioned?
The same goes for his time at the Rangers, which was apparently all lollipops and rainbows.
As another example, everything written about his governership of Texas is prejudicial: phrases like "set higher standards for schools" sound like facts but in fact give the reader no information and are the kind of thing you hear in campaign ads. Meanwhile, the only bad move he (might have) made is to let himself be
criticized for allegedly using controversial methods to disparage Richards
(my emphasis.) Why are three separate words needed in the same sentence to make the point that not everyone agrees that his methods were bad?
I'd keep looking for more examples, but my biases are giving me a headache.
Someone went through and deleted everything negative and rephrased everything with euphamistic language straight out of the whitehouse playbook... but it's being slowly fixed now to be more balanced... and not the kind of balance Fox News advertises.
-- 66.74.223.57 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone put Bush as monkeys.... can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain bingo ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Um, I'm not the biggest Bush supporter but that's kinda unprofessional, guys. Could you remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.166.226.42 ( talk) 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
That category has other well known drunk drivers in it such as Joan Kennedy and Mel Gibson. George W. Bush belongs there also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.125.218 ( talk) 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
I have a couple of issues with the information about the Church information in the "Early Life" section of the article, but I'm a new user so I can't change them. Passage in Question:
"Bush also left his family's Episcopal Church to join his wife's Methodist Church. Today, they are members of the congregation of the Highland Park United Methodist Church, near Dallas.[10]"
1. Highland Park is an independant city within and completely surrounded by Dallas, it is not 'near Dallas' but within Dallas. (I'm from Dallas)
2. Numerous Articles state that George W. Bush has not regularly attended any church at least since he has entered office. I can only find one at the moment [10] but I'm pretty sure I've seen others. The reference cited in the article does quote someone as saying, "I go to the same church that the Bushes attend, Highland Park Methodist in Dallas", but she might only mean that they go there when they're in Dallas. None of the Bush clan have ever lived in Dallas as far as I know so why would they belong to a Church there? Also, Marine One definitely is not seen flying over Dallas every Sunday. U.S. Presidents have for some reason been reluctant to visit Dallas for several decades now.
I recommend that the last sentance in the above passage be deleted entirely and if anything be replaced with a note that GWB does not currently regularly attend church. Scmeuguta 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
self correction: I must have had a brain fart. GWB lived and made his fortune in Dallas from 1988 to 1991 when he became part owner of the Texas Rangers [11], so it is very likely that he went to Highland Park Methodist while he lived here. Still, I don't think this qualifies him as a current member of the congregation. Scmeuguta 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the Spanish "arbusto" translate to the English "shrub"? Hence, many of George W. Bush's critics refer to him as "Shrub."
Herb Evans 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This article contains the following sentence: "Bush enjoyed strong support among Americans holding conservative and pro-military views." This is absurd. Every Democrat I know is "pro-military." However, we want the troops brought home, instead of being embroiled in a senseless conflict. Bush lied to the nation about why we needed to invade Iraq---and yet his followers are described as "pro-military." The fact is, there are many "pro-military" people out there (including a growing number of soldiers) who despise Bush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 ( talk) 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
I can't see how this edit made by Dicklyon has any place in the article. Why should we care about Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton's story about shooting frogs? I can't see how this warrants inclusion in GWB's bio. I reverted it, but the edit was reinserted with an edit summary saying it is "exculpatory, as explanation for some ways of thinking" [12]. I won't revert again for now, but I don't think this should be included. AuburnPilot talk 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I had looked at WP:BLP#Public_figures before adding it, and in my opinion the verifiable info about his childhood was "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources" and the context of the article made it clearly "relevant to their notability" (in my opinion; I realize others may differ). There were perhaps better parts of that article to choose, but I thought the frog bit was most interesting for the insight it gives (make your own interpretation). Dicklyon 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone happen to notice the Merriam-Webster words of the year for 2006 [14]? They all seem to be relevant to Bush, in varying degrees (OK, google is a stretch unless you count his googlebombing, but the other nine are pretty relevant). Should something be said? Dicklyon 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is very harsh on him. Whether you like him or not the lead paragraph is no place for irrelevant details like a 'a self declared war president'. The lead should only include general info, there is plenty of room to include all sorts of interesting stuff and even trivia further down. Please can the native editors clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrummerThanThou ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Someone has written a ridiculous paragraph about George W. Bush at the beginning of the article. To the best of my knowledge, though, the rest is fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.7.3 ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Over the last few months, a few editors have begun to protest whether George Bush was the first Presidential candidate to receive majority backing. Some even going so far as to delete the information from the article. Please note that at 50.7 of total votes cast, that George W. Bush, was the first President since 1988 years to receive more than half of the votes cast. Please stop deleting relevant, factual, and thoroughly sourced information from the article. Thank you. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, I agree with its inclusion. Such a fact is worthy of mention. AuburnPilot talk 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
For those that want the "majority president" bit to be included in the intro, I'm assuming that you think it's a significant piece of information because it "hasn't occured in over a decade, whatever the reason." I would also like to add another fact to the intro, something along the lines of:
If we are going to qualify election results in the intro paragraph, I would think that if we are going to use your test of significance as rare occurances ("hasn't occurred in over a decade"), that a lack of plurality that has only happened 2 other times in the history of the United States would merit inclusion in the introduction. -- kizzle 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
A self-described "war president," [1] Bush won re-election in 2004 [2] after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority popular vote since his father did so 16 years earlier; [3] by contrast, in the 2000 election he was only the third president in U. S. history to be elected without a plurality of the popular vote, the two other occurances happening in the 1876 and 1888 elections.
All manner of technically true factoids can be added to articles, but that does not mean they are meaningful. Important things to consider:
— Centrx→ talk • 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Texas Gubernatorial election was in 1994, not 1990. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperhobbit07 ( talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Ah yes.... The way it was worded was somewhat confusing...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperhobbit07 ( talk • contribs)
Much better!!! thanks so much!
What? As far as I know, that was a forged document which the CIA asserted was forged and told the Bush Admin repeatedly was false. Unless someone can cite a credible source that says the CIA said this, I am removing this within a week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerwinUMD ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Dear fellow readers -
I'm pretty new to the "factory floor" here on Wiki. How would I determine: 1) is the GWB page the "most vandalized" in the history of the site? 2) how long it has had protected status?
Thanks! Sincerely,
Steve Grant
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
I have restored a minor note which was in the article a few months ago. Since it refers to a description made by Bush of the nature of his own presidency, it seems highly relevant & noteworthy to me. I can't begin to imagine why it was removed & could find no mention of it on the talk page. Kasreyn 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It is taken rather out of context. The quote was, "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true." This indicates a focus on war issues, not an affirmation of war. The "war president" mention in the article implies that Bush considers himself pro-war -- this creates a rather negative connotation which is not very consistent with the intended meaning in the interview. -- The Other Other 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
one sided bias liberal headliner with no real depth or meaning( 153.42.161.199 07:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
I think that this needs some explanation as to context -- its use in the article makes it seem like Bush is describing himself as a "hawk," when I think the fairest interpretation of Bush's actual quote regards his role as that of a President in warTIME. Maybe a citation to the full quote is enough, but there is certainly a risk of non-neutrality in including this at the very beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.8.70 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, December 1, 2006
The Iraq War section is listed under the President's first term, but much of the information it contains carries over into the sceond term. Any suggestions as to how it should be organized? Jpers36 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it is certainly worth putting into its own section. Possibly at the end?
Isn't there an update needed in the war section? The Baker (spelling?) comission recently declared the Iraq strategie as failure. That should proabably being mentioned, especially since Bush himself said that a shift is needed, basically admitting his failure. The war is kinda lost, just like vietnam was lost and now its official. We germans and many other peoples around the globe warned the 'mericans before and we said that the politics where based on both: Lies and illusions. I still remember that axis of weasels joking. So who's the weasel now? Whining around because they lost something like what? 3000+ soldiers. Didn't they now that in wars soldiers happen to die? 3000 aren't that many at all. They shouldn't whine that much, but rather finish the mess they started properly...
The classification of the war as a 'success' or 'failure' is undeniably political, with recent reports from the press indicating that Bush himself suggests that the situation is winnable, or contraiwise, the situation is not an abject failure; contrasting the opinions of Gates (Rumsfeld's replacement) and the general democrat leadership, who take a much more pessimisstic (or realistic?!) view of the situation in I-raq: that it is an absolute failure. In order to remain neutral i think we should show both sides of the coin and report the views of what each vested interests says about success or failure and let the reader accordingly decide the issue. Neutrality in such issues in paramount. ToyotaPanasonic 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The Economic Policy section is only three paragraphs? Would anyone mind filling it up with some more info? Fephisto 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that it's a big deal or anything, but, when coupled w/"social services" and in the context used here, social security is a common noun meaning, "a field of social welfare concerned with social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment, families with children and others."-- Evb-wiki 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've always thought it was a severe deficiency of this article to not even mention Will Ferrell. As for Family Guy, it is very important because it is one of the few animated shows to criticize Bush directly. The Simpsons does so in disappointingly oblique ways (e.g., "Commander Cuckoo-Bananas"). Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A quick mention of criticism and popular culture critique wouldn't be a problem, but if we dwell on it and provide every example of criticism, it becomes non-notable and a case-in-point of weasel words and POV pushing (if you want an example of how "including all information" can turn into a case of POV pushing, try Reforms under Islam (610-661)#Animals). Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to have an article titled Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, which would include both dramatic and comedic works, as well as anything else? We could then provide a link to that on this article, most likely not in the criticism section but somewhere else. Jpers36 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This was debated before and it does push a POV. AuburnPilot talk has stated "Since I've been quoted above, I figured I'd respond. This information is definitly not NPOV." Also it doesn't need to be inserted again because it's already covered in the category section of George_W._Bush. ViriiK 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
On True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai, regarding the Japanese in the Second World War, 1941, on History Channel, I heard that some of the first Americans captured were in Dutch East Indies {&/or Malaya | Singapore}, for the Texas Guard { Tejas Guard?}. I suppose that the Air Guard would have been created a few years later.
The actual river is " Tamarkan". Japanese for [number] five is " go". The Japanese pronounced " speed-up" as " speedo".
It is currently on, & from 1100 - 1300, Pacific, 1900 - 2100, zulu time.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178
What is going on? Do we want criticism even included in this article? I have slowly seen negative material disappear from this article.
Criticism is mentioned in the introduction "he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, [.........]", yet the entire part in the main body of this article on criticism was removed.
If my interpretations are correct then I must call for *'ALL'* criticism to be only referenced in the "see also" section. Even though to me that goes against npov. And in fact this is already discouraged in the NPOV article, but arguments that criticism is so large that it needs a separate article, I can understand.
If we are going to separate criticism to a separate fork article then so be it, but then we must move *all* criticism to this article (e.g. Controversial acts, Hurricane Katrina, ...). No-one can say that one stance of criticism is unworthy of inclusion in the main article. At this point it is very unorganized, some criticism in the main article some not in the main article. -- ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Criticism articles are inherently POV forks and must be merged back in. I've tagged Criticism of George W. Bush for merging back into this article. theProject 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why were the criticisms removed? All of its content was verifiable, factual information. The quality of this article is no longer up to par with other high profile politicians. The value in Wikipedia is that it offers an opportunity to cover issues corporate media channels can't or won't cover.
How dare anyone call this neutral....it makes me sick.-- 69.66.25.4 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This section has been here long enough without anybody taking the initiative to work the contents into the article and it has already begun to collect repetitive/useless information. It's time to either move the information into the article or to the talk page per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. -- AuburnPilot talk 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A possibly minor point...the introductory paragraph makes no mention of the contested 2000 election, which is in contrast to the "only candidate to win the majority vote in 16 years" bit regarding the 2004 election. If that is notable enough for the introduction, objectively shouldn't the "only candidate since 1888 who won despite losing the popular vote" also be noted there? (This may seem trivial, but my impression on an initial read of this article is that it lacks coherency as a whole, and this is just one example).
Traumerei 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The two statements almost appear contradictory due to a lack of clarity. If he is the only candidate to win since 1888 after losing the popular vote in the 2000 election how can he also be the first in 16 years to win the majority vote in the 2004 election?
This logic makes it sound like Presidents for the 16 years prior to 2004 had all lost the popular vote, which seems to not have occurred since 1888.
Basically too confusing. They should be grouped together and clarified so as to to appear conflicting in nature.
You should change the picture, that one is ruined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sixest ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the Very Long template to the article. This article IS getting really really long. Infested-jerk 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
... isn't actually a sentence. "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946), 43rd President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and re-elected as president in the 2004 election." Do we want some form of "be" verb in there? Ryanluck 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
someone fix the part where it says he is the brother of jeb bush, the governor of florida, he is now the EX governor of florida.
In response to a reversion earlier today, I would like to point out that Donald Rumsfeld has confirmed his resignation, on the day after the 2006 elections. Therefore, I feel it is relevant to this article that we add a link to Robert Gates as he is currently the Secretary-elect.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Enough information now is factually proving that George Bush has been the most incompetant US president in history. When will the Wikipedia article reflect this? Universal reactions to the damage he and his administration are doing to the rest of the world can no longer be considered merely "opinion", and information needs to be placed here so that visitors can be adequately affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.107.210 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 December 2006
Most Americans would say Jimmy Carter was. Nixon was corrupt but he was effective. Decato 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Nixon has a number of sucesses including opening relations with China. Watergate was a scandal because of the coverup. Carter failed to take down Iran when the U.S had just cause and he left our economy in shambles.
Decato
21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
December 2006 (UTC)
There are currently 2 sections in the article titled "Foreign policy", and I think it would be best if one of them would be changed. I noticed this after editing one section and then right after it took me to the other one (I thought I accidently deleted some info). -- Ted87 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Criticism and public perception," y'all's need a period after the sentence that begins "From time to time,." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.175.65 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
I have made quite a lot of edits in Wikipedia to try to make it a work of reference rather than a list of ephemera, including in particular a lot of edits to the George W Bush article, most of which have been accepted by the Wikipedia community. The particular Guideline involved is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly, which says:
For some reason, some people seem to object to my changing "George W Bush is President..." to "George W Bush was inaugurated as President on <date>". I don't know why; the meaning of the two forms is the same today, but the latter form will still make sense in the future.
As there is a clear guideline, it should be followed. To say that other articles don't follow the guideline is irrelevant: they also are incorrect and need work. Wikipedia is infested with "recently", "currently", etc. This isn't a case of different opinions; if you disagree with the guideline, start a discussion to have it changed, don't just ignore it because you don't like it.
I don't know why there are so many objections to changing "is president" to "was inaugurated as ..."; perhaps someone would enlighten me on why they think it is so important to use the transient form?
For a much more extreme case of transient language, see the more trivial article on Tamsin Greig before and after my edits.
I write this as I am being threatened with the 3 reverts rule for simply trying to bring this article within Wikipedia guidelines.
Pol098 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick comment: Kchase does raise a legitimate point, namely that the relevant page is indeed a guideline and not policy. It also contains, as its very first sentence,
I happen to agree with the idea behind Pol's revision because we know for a fact that the sentences in question will no longer be true within just over two years. However, calling on policy and saying that a particular person who prefers the other version is not following it is extremely far-fetched. - Che Nuevara 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the opinions to date:
In discussion in other places regarding the guideline in general (not just this article), nobody considered that it should be revoked.
I suppose this discussion looks ridiculous here, as it is mainly about one sentence. However, there were a great many explicit and implied references to soon, at present, etc., and one that had already become out-of-date, with nobody noticing it. I made a considerable number of changes: see the batch of successive changes I made starting 09:28, 1 December 2006 Pol098
Pol098 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it appears that only one editor want the article to remain in present tense. Therefore, I think it safe to say that a consensus has been reached and the tense of the article can be changed. I would leave the intro line at the moment though, pending further discussion. -*- u: Chazz/ contact/t: 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that any hard-copy version will have to avoid the use of the present tense, even if it is appropriate for an electronic version. - Che Nuevara 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Following the discussion I started on wording that assumes the date we are reading the article, here is an example of something that got left in even after the event, making the article on this very prominent subject out-of-date. In November I found an old sentence like "A hearing is scheduled for September 28", and changed it to "A hearing was scheduled for September 28; the outcome was ???.[86]"
I thought that the many vigilant eyes would pick up and fill in the ???. but it is still there. Search the article for "September 26" or "???" to find this. Pol098 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I found a comprehensive, unbiased biography of George W. in a 1999 issue of Rolling Stone [8]. It's too early to have had a position on Bush's presidency, and yet has lots of details, especially on his oil company ventures and his investments. Is this useful to anybody who wants to incorporate it into the article here, or just add it as a link? Emiao 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this article be refactored such that the Presidency area is no longer split by term. Following the Ronald Reagan article, I think there should be a section about the 2000 and 2004 elections, followed by a section describing Bush's presidency as a whole. I may start work on that this evening. Jpers36 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am just starting to review the plethora of Bush articles. Could any of you who are familiar with them tell me if there is any mention of the 'WMD Joke Controversy' from the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner?
This one:
Thanks! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
We all know Bush is not the best leader, but you don't need to crap on it. It's not a toilet. A lot of people knw it's not really him now either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SBKT ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
This article is way too long - 106kB. Clearly moving some of the material into other articles is a task which will need to be done vary carefully - both to maintain an article with NPOV that represents the consensus view on how best to describe Bush, and to avoid being reverted as vandalism! Maybe moving some of the material about the policies of Bush's government; the sections on domestic, economic and foreign policy seem (to me) to be the best targets, and they already direct the reader to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration; maybe an Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration should be added to make Bush - the policies trilogy? Inner Earth 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Just browsing through this article I never seem to read anything that implies GWB ever did anything bad. I know the goodness / badness of George W. is a touchy subject, and I have my own biases, but I really don't think this article is balanced the way it is.
Case in point:
Bush returned to the oil industry, becoming a senior partner or chief executive officer of several ventures, such as Arbusto Energy ('arbusto' means bush in Spanish), Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy. These ventures suffered from the general decline of oil prices in the 1980s that had affected the industry and the regional economy, but he remained active through mergers, acquisitions and consolidations of his firms.
Which sounds to me like he never did anything wrong, that the businesses suffered soley due to circumstances beyond his control and he acted honorably throughout. Which might all be true, but I know there's no consensus about that, I don't think there's overwhelming evidence to support that POV, and there's certainly no evidence cited. On the other hand, the Harken Energy scandal isn't mentioned at all. If the reason for the failure of Dubya's oil ventures is suggested with no supporting evidence, shouldn't the evidence suggesting an accounting scandal at least be mentioned?
The same goes for his time at the Rangers, which was apparently all lollipops and rainbows.
As another example, everything written about his governership of Texas is prejudicial: phrases like "set higher standards for schools" sound like facts but in fact give the reader no information and are the kind of thing you hear in campaign ads. Meanwhile, the only bad move he (might have) made is to let himself be
criticized for allegedly using controversial methods to disparage Richards
(my emphasis.) Why are three separate words needed in the same sentence to make the point that not everyone agrees that his methods were bad?
I'd keep looking for more examples, but my biases are giving me a headache.
Someone went through and deleted everything negative and rephrased everything with euphamistic language straight out of the whitehouse playbook... but it's being slowly fixed now to be more balanced... and not the kind of balance Fox News advertises.
-- 66.74.223.57 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone put Bush as monkeys.... can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain bingo ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Um, I'm not the biggest Bush supporter but that's kinda unprofessional, guys. Could you remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.166.226.42 ( talk) 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
That category has other well known drunk drivers in it such as Joan Kennedy and Mel Gibson. George W. Bush belongs there also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.125.218 ( talk) 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
I have a couple of issues with the information about the Church information in the "Early Life" section of the article, but I'm a new user so I can't change them. Passage in Question:
"Bush also left his family's Episcopal Church to join his wife's Methodist Church. Today, they are members of the congregation of the Highland Park United Methodist Church, near Dallas.[10]"
1. Highland Park is an independant city within and completely surrounded by Dallas, it is not 'near Dallas' but within Dallas. (I'm from Dallas)
2. Numerous Articles state that George W. Bush has not regularly attended any church at least since he has entered office. I can only find one at the moment [10] but I'm pretty sure I've seen others. The reference cited in the article does quote someone as saying, "I go to the same church that the Bushes attend, Highland Park Methodist in Dallas", but she might only mean that they go there when they're in Dallas. None of the Bush clan have ever lived in Dallas as far as I know so why would they belong to a Church there? Also, Marine One definitely is not seen flying over Dallas every Sunday. U.S. Presidents have for some reason been reluctant to visit Dallas for several decades now.
I recommend that the last sentance in the above passage be deleted entirely and if anything be replaced with a note that GWB does not currently regularly attend church. Scmeuguta 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
self correction: I must have had a brain fart. GWB lived and made his fortune in Dallas from 1988 to 1991 when he became part owner of the Texas Rangers [11], so it is very likely that he went to Highland Park Methodist while he lived here. Still, I don't think this qualifies him as a current member of the congregation. Scmeuguta 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the Spanish "arbusto" translate to the English "shrub"? Hence, many of George W. Bush's critics refer to him as "Shrub."
Herb Evans 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This article contains the following sentence: "Bush enjoyed strong support among Americans holding conservative and pro-military views." This is absurd. Every Democrat I know is "pro-military." However, we want the troops brought home, instead of being embroiled in a senseless conflict. Bush lied to the nation about why we needed to invade Iraq---and yet his followers are described as "pro-military." The fact is, there are many "pro-military" people out there (including a growing number of soldiers) who despise Bush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 ( talk) 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
I can't see how this edit made by Dicklyon has any place in the article. Why should we care about Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton's story about shooting frogs? I can't see how this warrants inclusion in GWB's bio. I reverted it, but the edit was reinserted with an edit summary saying it is "exculpatory, as explanation for some ways of thinking" [12]. I won't revert again for now, but I don't think this should be included. AuburnPilot talk 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I had looked at WP:BLP#Public_figures before adding it, and in my opinion the verifiable info about his childhood was "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources" and the context of the article made it clearly "relevant to their notability" (in my opinion; I realize others may differ). There were perhaps better parts of that article to choose, but I thought the frog bit was most interesting for the insight it gives (make your own interpretation). Dicklyon 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone happen to notice the Merriam-Webster words of the year for 2006 [14]? They all seem to be relevant to Bush, in varying degrees (OK, google is a stretch unless you count his googlebombing, but the other nine are pretty relevant). Should something be said? Dicklyon 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is very harsh on him. Whether you like him or not the lead paragraph is no place for irrelevant details like a 'a self declared war president'. The lead should only include general info, there is plenty of room to include all sorts of interesting stuff and even trivia further down. Please can the native editors clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrummerThanThou ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Someone has written a ridiculous paragraph about George W. Bush at the beginning of the article. To the best of my knowledge, though, the rest is fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.7.3 ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Over the last few months, a few editors have begun to protest whether George Bush was the first Presidential candidate to receive majority backing. Some even going so far as to delete the information from the article. Please note that at 50.7 of total votes cast, that George W. Bush, was the first President since 1988 years to receive more than half of the votes cast. Please stop deleting relevant, factual, and thoroughly sourced information from the article. Thank you. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, I agree with its inclusion. Such a fact is worthy of mention. AuburnPilot talk 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
For those that want the "majority president" bit to be included in the intro, I'm assuming that you think it's a significant piece of information because it "hasn't occured in over a decade, whatever the reason." I would also like to add another fact to the intro, something along the lines of:
If we are going to qualify election results in the intro paragraph, I would think that if we are going to use your test of significance as rare occurances ("hasn't occurred in over a decade"), that a lack of plurality that has only happened 2 other times in the history of the United States would merit inclusion in the introduction. -- kizzle 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
A self-described "war president," [1] Bush won re-election in 2004 [2] after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority popular vote since his father did so 16 years earlier; [3] by contrast, in the 2000 election he was only the third president in U. S. history to be elected without a plurality of the popular vote, the two other occurances happening in the 1876 and 1888 elections.
All manner of technically true factoids can be added to articles, but that does not mean they are meaningful. Important things to consider:
— Centrx→ talk • 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Texas Gubernatorial election was in 1994, not 1990. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperhobbit07 ( talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Ah yes.... The way it was worded was somewhat confusing...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperhobbit07 ( talk • contribs)
Much better!!! thanks so much!
What? As far as I know, that was a forged document which the CIA asserted was forged and told the Bush Admin repeatedly was false. Unless someone can cite a credible source that says the CIA said this, I am removing this within a week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerwinUMD ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Dear fellow readers -
I'm pretty new to the "factory floor" here on Wiki. How would I determine: 1) is the GWB page the "most vandalized" in the history of the site? 2) how long it has had protected status?
Thanks! Sincerely,
Steve Grant