![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
That is something that I hope people will keep in mind when editing this article in the future as well as the aticles of future presidents. Too much unjust criticism gives the person you are talking about a free hand to do anything. For some reason, everyone who hates President Bush wants to flock to this article and find a way to weasle bad stuff into it. Ok, it's not like I don't know why but they need to stop even it for their own good. The more hysterical criticism of the President they try to put on this site and others just give the President permission to do anything he wants. It works like this, if you call someone the anti-christ for parting his hair on the wrong side you lose all credibility. If you criticize someone even when they do the right thing, you lose all credibility. Thus, then the President really does do something that is worthy of criticism and legitimate people want to put that up it is seen by others as more of the same crazy talk as before and no one takes it seriously. The recession in the economy that hit in 2001 was predicted 2 years in advance. To say that that recession was the President's fault (either Clinton or Bush) is ignorance of how markets work. President Bush was being blamed for the recession before he even took office. Some people actually believed as they didn't know any better but what is more probable is that the people saying this had a 'need' to believe it. They wanted to believe it and start blaming every problem in the world on President Bush and so they did even though they knew better. You can usually tell those people because they refuse to say 'President' Bush and always refer to him as 'Mr.' Bush which is not his title as long as he holds that office. Now we have a situation wherein so much garbage has been laid at the President's feet that he isn't listening anymore because he doesn't think anyone is going to talk to him in good faith. He thinks everyone just wants to catch him saying something wrong to lay even more stuff at his blame.
The reason that all of this affects the article (besides how our everyday lives are being manipulated by the Feds) is that now legitimate people who have legitimate critical evidence to call the President on feel that they can't lest they be grouped together with the same crowd of people that call President Bush the worst president ever because he owns a dog. Some of us have real issues that we want to see incorporated in a fair article but are drowned out by people that think the U.S. invades Iraq to steal oil (which if true it means that it is the most expensive heist in history). I am asking PLEASE eveyone, stay in reality and keep the article fair if for no other reason then so that the real life arguments can stand on their merrits. If you really think that President Bush is such a bad president then you shouldn't need to put crazy stuff up here as the truth would be bad enough.
The Hurricane Katrina section needs work and a new section about the recent immigration law that tries to enforce 'English Only' onto the incoming population should be created and done factually and fairly. It should be no surprise I don't like the new law as it increases the disadvantage that Louisiana has to the other Anglophone states but on Wikipedia we need to be factual. If we aren't factual then we might as well not even have the thing up.-- Billiot 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, here is but one news piece about it. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION_QA?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT The important section is as follows
I think this is pretty telling and I am in the process of getting a copy of the actual law from a lawmaker so that it can be reviewed. America has had a very long history of Anglophones forcing their language on other people and this law is just another example of Louisiana being at a severe disadvantage to the Anglophone, common law states. Why isn't there a section to allow Francophones into Louisiana? That is my question that no one wants to answer or can't with a straght face.-- Billiot 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It is important to not overreact to this one section. I am an imigrant to this country from Russia and when I started my citizenship process in 1993 I had to take English classes and show that I was learning English language and American History. This has been standard practice for a very very long time. Boris B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.163.210 ( talk) 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Katrina section, Michael Brown is referred to as being a 'horse trader,' but according to the articles " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown" and " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Arabian_Horse_Association" his position with their organization is listed as Judges and Stewards Commissioner. The article about Brown describes his tenure in the IAHA involving investigations and disciplinary actions against at least one horse breeder, not participating in the sale of horses. It should be altered to read: "First, leaders from both parties attacked the president for having appointed incompetent leaders to positions of power at FEMA, most notably Michael D. Brown,[103] who was Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, (IAHA), from 1989-2001, before commanding FEMA." This gives an accurate description of Mr. Brown's position before joining FEMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 ( talk) 21:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I think the President would be proud to mention this new book by daughter Jenna Bush - [http://www.amazon.com/Anas-Story-Journey-Jenna-Bush/dp/0061379085/ref=sr_1_4/102-1544700-0032916?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192046380&sr=1-4 Ana's Story: A Journey of Hope] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.77.150 ( talk) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on the 2000 election that reads, "On election day, November 7, 2000 ... 537 votes out of 6 million cast, making it the 30th state he carried."
Suggest this be removed from George W Bush page and put on 2000 Presidential Election page and the Bush v Gore supreme court case page. The details are mind-numbingly long for what is supposed to be a biographical page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granthursin ( talk • contribs)
It seems to me there should be at least some mention in the lead section about the fact that Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, not elected through the regular election process. This is a pretty big distinction. TheUniverseHatesMe 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Around a year ago, an argument was made by myself (older account, The_Other_Other) for the non-NPOV of the "war president" reference. The proceeding discussion was a consensus that the reference did indeed violate NPOV guidelines. Since then, the entire discussion has been suspiciously deleted (it doesn't appear in the archives, anyway), and after a bit of back-and-forth (see here and here) without acknowledging the misrepresentation argument, the reference has been restored. So again, I will restate the case for its removal. Since this is clearly a controversial issue, I'll refrain from editing until a consensus emerges one way or the other.
The article currently reads as follows:
Running as a self-described "war president" in the midst of the Iraq War, [1] Bush won re-election in 2004; [2] his presidential campaign against Senator John Kerry was successful despite controversy over Bush's prosecution of the Iraq War and his handling of the economy. [3] [4]
The sighted reference for the "war president" quote is as follows ( link):
[Bush:] I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
My objections are as follows:
(1) "War president" is taken somewhat out of context from the original quote. Without clarification, "war president" heavily implies that Bush is, in whatever sense, pro-war. Bush clarified the self-description as "I make decisions . . . in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind." Bush's statement was along the lines of "Because a war is going on, I am constantly involved in issues concerning the war and it is constantly on my mind." This is very different from "I like war, and intend to get this country involved in it to an extent that is far greater than the norm", which is closer to the implied meaning of the quote as presented in the article.
(2) The quote was taken from an oral interview, not a written one, and later transcribed into a written document, without qualifying it as spoken dialog. This may not seem like a big deal, but it raises a couple notable issues. Firstly, written dialog varies significantly from oral dialog, partly because the social context is very different and also because responses are not thought out. Secondly, the oral-to-text transition inevitably and unconditionally removes all . It also opens the door to scribe bias (e.g., including "um"s while omitting subtle qualifiers like "no", "well", "actually", etc.), which is rather blatantly evident in the text version of the interview.
(3) The quote is non-NPOV, even if it fairly documents something Bush said, in that it doesn't represent Bush's general advocacy. It may be true that many people view Bush as a war president, but if you asked Bush if he considered himself a war president, I'm sure he would not hesitate to qualify his previous spontaneous statement. "Self-described" implies that Bush accepts and endorses the view that he is a "war president", which is far from accurate. "Bush once issued the oral statement 'I am a war president'" is fair and accurate; Bush describes himself as a 'war president' is not.
Again, I realize that the issue is controversial, so I suggest we wait for a consensus to form before making a (hopefully final) conclusion. Please do not treat it as the '08 election. ;-)
-- XDanielx 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Can someone please change the wording on the main page from "pleaded guilty" to "plead guilty"
Context - "He pleaded guilty, was fined $150, and had his driver's license suspended until 1978 in Maine."
Is it also possible to have the word Dickface removed from the first paragraph? It wrecks any neutrality the article is supposed to have. Jacinta.s 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems unjustifiably omissive that not a single mention of fascism or authoritarianism is included in an article about a man large segments of America and the world consider its modern epitome. It's also a little peculiar that there's no summary under the criticism subheading, but just an immediate link to a separate page that itself contains no mention of fascism or authoritarianism. Is it our job to legitimize this man, or to post an unbiased NPOV article about him? Wercloud 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is susposed to a neutral presentation of the facts, not an opinion peice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.162.98 ( talk • contribs) 22:24, August 16, 2007
Oh my god… I think I can put this whole argument to rest right now. Finding a “reliable source” would entail finding information from a source that is qualified to make the statement “Bush is a fascist” or “Bush is a totalitarian”. An editorial or an opinion poll does not meet this criterion. Editorials and opinion polls are opinions, not facts and they don’t belong here. I don’t care how big and “reliable” the source is be it the New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ect. The only thing you will find in any of those sources is opinions from writers and opinion polls. Opinions don’t belong in Wikipedia, it’s an encyclopedia. Can you think of any source that would unequivocally show that Bush is in fact a fascist? I can’t even think of a place to find that kind of info let alone a source that would be qualified to make that statement. Opinions from world leaders of nations who are at odds with the U.S. don’t count either. They’re obviously going to be biased and have a conflict of interest. The simple fact of the matter is that in a little more time Bush won’t be in office anymore, we’ll have a new president and this whole thing will start over again with someone new. I don’t see how you call someone a fascist and totalitarian when they haven’t been in office long enough to prove that. Presidents can only serve two terms of four year. I think the entire discussion is kind of silly when someone is only able to hold power for such a little amount of time. Now, if Bush does something insane like refuse to leave office at the end of his last term then I think he would meet the definitions of the words that so many people throw around without knowing there true power and meaning. The entire argument above is nothing more then soap boxing and POV pushing from both sides. It’s all entirely silly. I know it’s hard to separate personal opinions and passions from one’s editing on Wikipedia. God knows there has been plenty of times when I’ve just wanted to go over to the Hugo Chavez article and replace the entire thing with profanity and a picture of a giant douche but that’s not what the point of this whole Wikipedia thing is. I think we can all agree that we just need to all calm down, drop this argument, and all try to make sure we leave our personal feelings and passions at the door when we put on our Wiki hats. Thanks! Elhector 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The reference to polling data is dead on. If someone could provide poll results from a credible source (gallup) that indicated that the majority of Americans or the world at large considers Bush to be a facist it would be relevant. Unless there is statistically significant data to support such a statement it is nothing but posturing and soapboxing. Also, on a personal note, as an emigree from Soviet Russia despite the fact that I do not like President Bush, I am personally disgusted to even hear someone consider him as a modern epitome of Facism. Please set your prejudices aside and deal with facts. And go read about some of my former countrymen. Boris B
On a related note, would it be relevant to include mention of Bush signing into law an executive order outlawing protest against war in Iraq? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29 and http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.70.7 ( talk) 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Seriously the executive order prohibits the material support, not vocal support, of the insurrectionists in Iraq. Freedom of Speech is unaffected. Providing aid, succor or monetary support to the insurrectionists could result in a hold on your assetts. Please check facts. Boris B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.203.117 ( talk) 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:SUMMARY and the Manual of Style, the "Cabinet appointments" and "Domestic policy" sections need at least two sentences of text. Currently they just have see-main links. ← BenB4 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposing a reference to GWB's possible use of cocaine, or at least a topic on the accusations of such?
see: Hatfield's 'Fortunate Son'[ [6]]
If there is an inclusion of Bill Clinton's 'I didn't inhale' on his page, shouldn't this topic be covered for Bush as well? 24.5.74.180 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just hold on a minute - I recall him denying he had used since 1974, which is not the same thing.
02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 as a result of the Florida outcome. However, he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes[48] making him the first president elected without at least a plurality of the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison in 1888.[49][50]
What about the 1992 and 1996 elections? Bill Clinton did not receive a plurality of the vote either time. He had the most votes out of the three main candidates, but received less than 50% of the popular vote both times. 69.149.39.142 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would someone kindly remove the line "Among presidential scholars, he is considered one of the worst U.S. presidents to hold the office" from the intro. It may well be true in the future, but seeing as his term isn't even over, it's mildly POV. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.175.36 ( talk) 10:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Every single word of it was perfectly true in every way, whether he has been kicked out yet or not. Please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.218 ( talk) 03:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The latest round of vandalism to this article seems particularly difficult to undo. Immediately after President Bush's full name (the first words of the article) and before his birthdate is written (a.k.a. The Devil) I have been unable to revert it like the otehr articles, and even trying to delete the portion manually is unsuccessful, as the vandalism does not show on the edit page. But I've refreshed with different browsers, and the slight against him is visible. Is this due to the protected status, or just a clever method of vandalism? Yookaloco 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"At the beginning of his first term, Bush was regarded by some as lacking legitimacy due to his narrow victory in Florida and the attendant controversy surrounding his overall victory, which included accusations of vote suppression and tampering." Isn't this by definition weasel-wording, and therefore, inappropriate? CBoz 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the article makes note of the president's approval rating in the opening segment, shouldn't it be kept up to date instead of referring to a single polling that is more than a month old? A site like this: " http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm" keeps track of the more recent polls tracking the president's approval and disapproval ratings, so shouldn't the article be updated to reflect the most recent data available? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 ( talk) 21:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I think there needs to be more crticism here. And how about a section on 'Bushisms' and what a bad public speaker he is. Xavier cougat 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! And I'm sure Bush is a nice man, too!
^ that was a sarcastic joke, right..? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.53.37.218 (
talk)
03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the birthplace listed as New Haven, US in the summary/stats box under his picture? It should be New Haven, CT in order to be consistent with all the other presidents pages. This could be misleading to readers who are not aware of the state in which New Haven is located. This inaccuracy is all the more suspicious in light of the image that GW Bush portrays (i.e. that he is "from" Texas, and distances himself from New England)
75.7.11.47 ( talk) 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo has placed an image in the foriegn perceptions section. It's basically a stencil with an image of Bush and it says "worst president" on it. In an effort to prevent an edit war I'm trying to start a discussion here concerning it since it's been removed and re-added a few times now. My personal opinion is that this image does not belong here. It's in the foriegn perception section yet the text in the image is in english and I'm fairly sure I've only seen this image on t-shirts here in the United States, so i highly doubt it's a foriegn image. Personally I think this image would belong in the Bush Controversy page or the Bush Criticism page (i believe both those pages exist) Anyways, let's discuss this before an edit war starts. Elhector 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Overall this is really actually pretty darn good, this is the first time I've read it. I did note one error, in the Domestic perceptions section, there is a line:
"Many Republicans began criticizing Bush on his policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Territories.[162]"
The USA Today article referenced only lists two Republican representatives, and uses the term "some" rather than "many" in describing the opposition. Possibly that should be updated here, or more references to additional representative comments should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmathies ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an Australian student strike campaign known as " Walkout against George W. Bush" (WAG) going on to protest about George Bush coming to Australia for the Asia Pacific forum on Economic Cooperation. I think this should be added to the article under the Criticism section. Do you agree? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just read the article and in general it seems to be quite good.
I did feel that in a few areas it was too brief and there were some notable omissions:
1) The fact that Bush filled two vacancies on the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito) is quite an important event in his presidency and should probably be at least mentioned somewhere in the article.
2) It also seems to me that general re-assertion of the authority of the executive branch vs the legislative and the judicial branches is an important theme of the entire Bush presidency, where he appears likely to have a substantial lasting impact. So perhaps something could be mentioned about that? Maybe also a few words about relations with Congress?
3) In the Immigration section there is currently no mention of the fact that a comprehensive immigration reform bill was actually prepared with the Bush administration's help, that it was introduced in the Senate, that Bush actively supported it, and that the bill died in the Senate on a cloture motion. Similar info is rightly provided in the Social Security section of the article. Arguably, the immigration reform bill constituted a more notable event because of the public reaction and debate it generated, because it had an actual chance of passing, and because it appears to have greater political consequences.
Regards,
Nsk92
03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A Question
I have read that President Bush suffers from Dyslexia. (I apologise if this has been brought up before). Is this True? Incorrect? Or a Stupid Joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.132.21 ( talk) 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
when you compare bush 20+ years ago, he right now appears to have suffered a stroke, he also has balance problems "he walks like he's balancing his weight with some difficulty arms wide open" and his face slurs to one side when he actively talks. Markthemac 08:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
President George W. Bush is not a representative of Christian faith and his religious affiliation should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.22.40 ( talk • contribs)
A personal biography that omits a person's stated religous beliefs, when that person is a public figure who makes a great deal out of his Christianity, is seriously deficient. Your are correct this is not a theocracy, it is a state with religious freedom. Please be careful that we do not confuse seperation of church and state, with complete suppression of church. A man is entitled to his religious views, and is even entitled to attempt to get policy passed based on his views. If you wish me to site relevant SC cases on seperation of church and state I will and, oh never mind I'll stop being polite. Your statement about this not being a Theocracy offends me greatly as it demonstrates an intolerance of and a bigotry towards religion. No matter whether the man is President or a garbage man he is entitled to his religious beliefs and those beliefs are relevant in a biography of him.
Thank You----BorisB
...he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard...
not
...he was discharged for the Texas Air National Guard...
24.22.214.91 ( talk) 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I am removing these flags from the infobox. If anyone can come up with an encyclopedic reason to restore them, here would be the place to do it. -- John 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the last sentence at the end of the fourth paragraph. Am I the only one who thinks this is a non-sequitur? MessedRocker ( talk) 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is the photograph captioned "George W. Bush Jr" when the article itself says "However, because the son's full name is not exactly the same as his father's (the younger is George Walker Bush as opposed to the elder George Herbert Walker Bush), the "Jr." is incorrect"? Be consistent! MacAuslan 08:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the opening preamble section there's a bit about Bush's approval ratings. It sights the historic highs and lows he has managed to achieve, going on to say he's reached lower approval ratings than any president for 35 years. Well and thorough, but is it necessary once these points are made to have to say "Only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon scored lower.[10]"? Seems a bit overboard in the opening paragraphs of a biography. Thanks. 125.174.223.253 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is really no reason for the extended working vaction bit during the Katrina Section.
I agree, it seems to be a criticism outside of the criticism section, and therefore should be excised from that part. If anyone wants to keep it, I suggest that we move it to the perceptions and criticisms section, as the "working vacation" seems to belong there. -- 142.58.176.123 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Katrina, I was wondering if anyone planned on adding the exchanges between George W. Bush and the authorities of Louisiana before the hurricane hit? That Bush urged evacuations, but the that the advice was ignored? 74.138.95.115 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)New&naive
Yeah, that's right, Ray Nagin DID IGNORE BUSH'S PLEA TO ORDER AN EVACTUATION, AND I PUT IT ON THIS ARTICLE AND IT WAS REVERTED BECAUSE IT WASN'T CITED!! I'm a very busy student, but I guess I can find time to find a source I can use to cite the information, perhaps tomarrow. But I don't think it's neutral point of view to show one side of the issue but not the other. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
n August of 2006, Lakehead University of Thunder Bay launched an international advertising campaign dubbed "Yale Shmale," that features a goofy image of Bush with the title'Yale University, Class of 1968'. [1] The "Yale Shmale" advertising campaign pokes fun at U.S. President George W. Bush and his Ivy League alma mater. The poster reads, "“Graduating from an Ivy League university doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smart,” [2] Phase 2 of the awareness campaign replaced the headline “Yale Shmale” and its image of the U.S. President with the message: “Be Smart. Choose a university that’s right for you.”
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me this is a truth, merely stating facts. The 'bashing' was exactly the intent of the ads, would you not agree ?
I feel sorry for Bush, and for North America, that's not the issue here.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not only President Bush who was deceived about Iraq, so were alot of the Military in the Canadian Services.
Currently in Canada the Prime Minister has ousted a Cabinet Minister and stated that he won't be running in the next election as a Conservative. There is good and bad in all. Believing that there is no darker side is a real problem in todays society.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
References
I have entered the following several times only to have it deleted:
Bush has repeatedly warned the world about terrorism - “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
“If anybody harbours terrorists they’re a terrorist; if they fund a terrorist they’re a terrorist; if they house terrorists they’re terrorists – I mean I can’t make it any more clearly (sic)."
NB - Wiki entries show us that terrorists, e.g. [Luis Posada Carriles] [9] and [Orlando Bosch] [10] are currently being harbored by the USA.
Why is this entry being deleted? and by whom? when it is so telling about this man?
If you assist a terrorist and you're considered a terrorist then shouldn't Bush be considered a terrorist? How about his father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.149.229 ( talk) 07:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Can Bush be tried as a war criminal? This article should include that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.242.133 ( talk) 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that 'fringe parties' (give their names) have suggested this. It is a truth, not the whole truth, perhaps not a credible truth, but still a reality.
There should be some defense of President Bush outlining how he and those around him were given incorret information leading to the invasion. (one must believe that President Bush was falsely informed - he cannot be held responsible for information given to him that was false )
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
rubbish a president is ALWAYS responsible for every part of government under him, so also responsible for falsifying information, as all material was proven false by the UN the day it was shown Markthemac 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the entry is as valid as one at Wiki about Herman Göring, "He said that he had no control over the actions or the defense of the others...". Bush of course will try to use the excuse that he was lied to so his subsequent decisions were their fault. (Your use of "rubbish" isn't particularly Wiki conversation polite by the way!) Meraloma 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
When the lead says that his handling of the economy is controversial (I know the lead isn't the place to get into specifics), but what does this refer to? I mean, unemployment is at 4 year lows, economy has grown 20% since 2001, wages are starting to go up...I mean, what am I missing? What are the alleged misdeeds to the economy? Thanks so much, Judgesurreal777 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section added by RucasHost ( talk · contribs) for failing WP:NPOV and WP:OR. In addition, it appears to be original research, claiming the hand gesture is the sign of Satan. Links such as http://www.bushisantichrist.com are in no way reliable, and cannot be used. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the section AuburnPilot removed was POV and OR, Bush's religious beliefs are arguably relevant. Religion and religious groups have been enormously meaningful in recent American politics. This section could be written differently. - Che Nuevara 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a ref from biography.com on Bush's conversion to Methodism (from Episcopalianism) and his ensuing increased religious convictions. For his apparent "lapse" later on, I will keep my eye out. - Che Nuevara 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Here's another potentially useful link. - Che 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading about the Don Siegelman case and glanced through here and we do not mention the DOJ at all during the article. Given the massive amount of contraversy surrounding the midterm firing of Prosecutors and the widespread accusations of partisan biases, it needs to be in here. I'll type something up later today, but my questions is why isn't it here already? RTRimmel 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Possible sources:
what's with the picture? i mean, i don't like bush, but that looks like vandalism which i can't revert since it's protected. - 89.136.168.239 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
the picture was just changed and i would like to thank the person/bot who did it. if you have a problem with bush, leave the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisenbery ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As much as someone might not support or like the President, it is our duty as American citizens to have respect for our policians. It sickens me to see the picture with ' Worst President' as the main picture on this page. It would be more appropiate for Wikipedia to perhaps go back to the original White House photo of the Commander in Chief. A.Tarantola Washington DC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.126.26 ( talk) 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yboord028 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree, the picture must show the most positive one available,(whether we like the person or not) as to the 'negative' well probably left to another page of criticisms, and in balance to the entire spectrum of truths.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"It sickens me to see the picture with ' Worst President' as the main picture on this page."
To this comment we should include a positive picture, to exclude all other pictures would create a half-truth. I was not suggesting that we only include a positive picture, but let us not overdo it. For Bush or Saddam same principles must apply.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia isn't just for "American Citizens". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.112.81.129 ( talk) 12:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent news articles have brought to light what Bush considers torture vs what the dictionary considers torture [12]. Anyone have any thoughts on this before I start adding it in? RTRimmel 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone remember that his name use to be George Willard Bush? How come it is not search-able anywhere online? It's like this name never existed... I clearly remember the name when he ran for governor in Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old days ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was George Washington Bush... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.51.182.247 (
talk)
14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from inserting the POV-pushing "Some say..." regarding GWB as a "terrorist." It is inappropriate, and if you continue, you will be reported for disruptive editing. And, yes, your initial POV-pushing edit was marked "minor", a common tactic to hide the edits from those who don't include minor edits in their watch list. Very deceptive practice, that. K. Scott Bailey 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the following statement should be removed:
However, prior to vetoing the bill, President Bush had recieved sage and learned counsel advocating hope for the 'controversial' innocent:
"Safe Minds warns:
"Under the current administration, mercury has been and will continue to be knowingly injected into the youngest of American citizens. The controversial mercury-containing preservative thimerosal has been linked by thousands of parents as being the cause of their children's mercury poisoning and autism."
"The flu vaccine, which continues to be manufactured with mercury, is recommended for all pregnant women, infants and children despite the fact that the Institute of Medicine in 2001 recommended against the policy of exposing these same sensitive groups to thimerosal containing vaccines."
I think this section is POV for the following reason: It is a minor view from a small group which is critical of GWB in a certain area. It is not a major view shared by many citizens. Hence the section should be removed. Ulner 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Regards. Wales 13:15 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I know the editors of this article have done such a great job in trying to keep the POV out, as President Bush is a controversial public figure. I do express concern over one, what I consider to be minor issue: the placement of the 2004 campaign section. Bush was President during his 2004 campaign, so would it not be more factually accurate to put that subsection in the "Presidency" section? Example: Ronald Reagan... Just a thought, but I think it will benefit the article chronologically-wise. Thanks, Happyme22 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter Keisler is listed as the current AG. Actually, Michael Bernard Mukasey is the nominee and will be AG once Congress confirms him. -- 72.75.91.146 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
On the last paragraph of the introduction. "...[10] the lowest level for any sitting president in 35 years.[11]"
Should this say since Nixon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.2.188 ( talk) 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on, try to read this article neutrally. That's admittedly hard-going, but the tremendous to-do surrounding this person is understated in every sub-point. this is obviously one of the main articles WP is judged by and from an editor's point of view I understand the reluctance to dwell on points of contraversy, but do realise that that mindset subtracts unfairly from the factual and popular truth. What I'm on about is mainly what the article intentionally avoids, merely alludes to or avoids altogether, due to the fact that it would be momentarily unwelcome among some audiences. I wish I could dissect the article all night but I can't and I'll just give one demonstrative example that the whole text should be reviewed by: the Sept. 11 section is completely inaccurate historically because it not only fails to note the contraversial details of his actions that day but obviously dwells solely on the points that are uncontraversial. I haven't gone through the page history but I know from WP that someone will have tried to expand on this and been overruled. This example goes for every point of contention in the article. I know most of you EDITING WP are Americans but I'd remind you with urgency that plenty of those READING it are not, and editorial decisions made to appease factions of the American audience for the sake of avoiding scorn in effect only serve to dissuade the multinational audience. To summarise, where the reporting of modern events is concerned, if a bridge collapses WP discusses it including all aspects of it's contraversy that are popularly reported. This article conspicuously MISRESPRESENTS points of view that are absolutely fundamental for proper understanding of the person and his place in time, and what is an encylopedia for if not to give a WELL-ROUNDED synopis of things? I say the article should be overhauled altogether with a much more tolerant view towards all the points that are generally held to be important in day-to-day discussion of this person. grendelsmother 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Revolving Bugbear, grendelsmother in your judgment if there is an article in the NY Times, the AP, USA Today, and the National Archives about the need to build a levee in order to protect New Orleans from another Category 5 Hurricane and that says if the government ignores this need, it will be guilty of negligence or incompetence, is that story "POV pushing", are the sources "unreliable", and are the authors not doing "original research"? If the answers to all these questions are no, and I challenge anybody to answer yes to any of these, there is no excuse for not being able to mention Bush's failure to extradite or imprison Luis Posada Carriles within the context of criticism on a fundamental flaw in the Bush Doctrine. Pistolpierre 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Pistolpierre, I would like to bring your attention to an important grammatic fact regarding the NYTimes article: Every single sentence which contains the word "Bush" also contains a subjunctive verb. The subjunctive is used for contrary-to-fact or conditional phrases.
The article makes no claim that Bush has rendered an opinion on the subject. It doesn't even make a claim that Bush has ever so much as uttered the man's name. All it says is "If Bush does this, then this could happen." The New York Times is a reliable source for a great many things. The future isn't one of them. - Revolving Bugbear 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the article, Posada Carriles has been released from prison by a Texas judge. The harboring of Posada was mentioned as a consequence for not extraditing him or imprisoning him as a terrorist. So actually your point about the NY Times predicting the future is just bizarre or obscure in the least. If the NY Times writes an article about the need for strengthened levees in New Orleans in order for the Bush Administration to avoid being perceived as negligent in the future, how would you respond to such an article? Would you dismiss the NY Times as a reliable source for commenting on the future as it relates to the past vis à vis the Katrina response. Substitute the Bush Doctrine for the Bush "Marshall Plan" for the Gulf Coast and you will understand my point. If you make a public policy and then ignore it, you are negligent, no? -- Pistolpierre ( talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, this text was already in the article before Pistolpierre added it elsewhere. It's been there since Nov 1. I removed it per the discussion above. - Revolving Bugbear 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I must say, I am surprised at the lack of mention of his religious convictions in this article. The religious right is a major socio-political force in the US and has been instrumental in supporting Bush through both election campaigns. He has made numerous public pronouncements about how his faith has guided his presidential decisions and policy, how he believes that God wanted him to become president, how he believes that human rights were derived from God, the Faith Based Initiative... That's not to say that he's a fundamentalist or evangelist - he keeps quite quiet about specific beliefs on things like creationism, abortion, homosexuality and other vexed questions that play on the religious right's mind. But it seems that his Christianity is a deep part of what drives and guides him and should be given a little more airing in this article. I'm not condoning OR - but this article does look a little odd without at least a brief mention of the faith of maybe the most overtly religious president in living memory. AJKGORDON «» 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm chiming in to this discussion a bit late, but for one thing there's this book I own:
I don't think it is POV at all to talk about President Bush's religion and how, according to this book, it apparently influences him.
These seem pretty significant for the President of the United States, espcially one who has gotten so much criticism. I think mentioning his faith is perfectly approproate and definitely not POV as long as the facts are truthfully presented and the wording is neutral. We mentioned Ronald Reagan's faith in his FA article in the first section! Happyme22 ( talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There was never an assasination attempt on GW Bush. He was no where near the stage and nor was he scheduled to speak anytime soon. Please remove this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberclops ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hate to edit a controversial page such as this, but this is twisted. This is not the lowest approval rate of past (I recall reading Jimmy Carter only received 19% in Star Spangled Men). However, even if the book is wrong or I recall incorrectly, the sentence as it read was not backed up by the source right after it. So I rewrote the sentence so it would be true to the source and not twisting it. There is a difference between an approval rating and a disapproval rating. Redwolf24 ( talk) 03:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've looked around and it appears George has the most archives for a article in all of wiki. This article has 50 some archives. Just an example but, Hitler has 48 archives. I'm not comparing George to Hitler, just that it kinda shows that he's a very controversial guy. So i dunno where this would go in he article, interesting none the less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.146.219 ( talk) 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D) Vermont, has recently stated that the President was not involved in the firings of the eight US Attorneys.
I propose to add this information to the section on this incident. Even though Leahy's made the pronouncement as a move to circumvent the President's assertion of Executive Privilege which the President has invoked to prevent questioning of several key aides by the committee*, it is still relevant that one of the President's staunchest political enemies has cleared him of any involvement in Gonzales' bungling of the incident.
This move clears the way for Leahy to seek contempt citations against Bush aides such as Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers.
If there's no objections, & I'll check back in a few days, then I'll amend the section.
Here's the AP (via FoxNews) story's url: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov29/0,4670,SenateProsecutors,00.html
PainMan ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to US and Australian forces to be more accurate, because Britain took little/no part in the initial bombing phase of Afghanistan, Australian F-111s did. -- TheOnlyJason ( talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding signed comment added by TheOnlyJason ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We the british have put our troops on the line and thats the respect we get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.65.166 ( talk) 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The mere fact that the caption under Mr. Bush's picture reads "biggest moron in the country" (on a protected page, so apparently its not vandalism), should disqualify this article from serious consideration. Further, the tenor an tone of the article is not one of a scholar, who is interested in covering the facts, but of a political activist, who is interested in maligning his subject. As a protected article, Wikipedia itself shares responsibility for this poor effort. And for those commentators who profess that this is a good article, I believe some self-examination is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GolemDeath ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the ridiculous image shown below. This is partisan political propaganda; in no way encyclopedic; and is an entirely unscholarly way to mock and ridicule the president.
Plenty of similar material could be inserted into articles about the Clintons (with FAR more justification), but would be just as unencyclopedic/politically partisan as this image.
Can't this image be deleted from the wikipedia's servers? Only the most rabid Moveon.org fanatics could think this belongs in this article. (Which is not to say there are no circumstances in which it couldn't appear in wikipedia; an article on political or specifically presidential satire could be a place for it. For those seeking an impartial article on the Younger Bush, such partisanship has no place.
Whoever created this "stencil" obviously knows nothing about US presidents. As for worst, the Younger Bush isn't even close: try James Buchannan, Warren G. Harding, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and most of the Gilded Age Chief Magistrates.
PainMan ( talk) 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In the environmental policy it is stated "[h]e did so after the Senate had voted 95–0 on a resolution expressing its disapproval in 1997." This is a little ambiguous; it is unclear in this section if it is meant that the Senate disapproved of the treaty or the President's anticipated actions. 24.243.131.124 ( talk) 07:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I am still confused about the section. It reads:
Upon arriving in office in 2001, Bush withdrew United States support of the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change seeking to impose mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He did so after the Senate had voted 95–0 on a resolution expressing its disapproval of the protocol in 1997. Bush asserted he would not support it because the treaty exempted 80 percent of the world's population [1] and would have cost the economy tens of billions of dollars per year, [2] and was based on the uncertain science of climate change. [3] The Bush Administration's stance on global warming has remained controversial in the scientific and environmental communities during his presidency.
I think it should read something like this:
Upon arriving in office in 2001, Bush continued the United State's policy of non-support for the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, seeking to impose mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He continued this policy after the Senate had voted 95–0 on a resolution expressing its disapproval of the protocol in 1997, during the Clinton administration. Bush asserted he would not support it because the treaty exempted 80 percent of the world's population, etc...
It makes it clear that the senate vote was under the Clinton administration and that the US position on Kyoto did not change when Bush entered office.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first=
(
help)
I was wanting to add this image but of course there isn't much point if it's just gonna be reverted soon after. Would anybody object to it, and if not, suggestions as to the best place for it? Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant to state that George W. Bush is the son of former president George H.W. Bush, but it is irrelevant to talk about a distant unspecified relation to another former president. The nature of genealogy is such that millions of people are "distantly related" to famous people. If there is a direct relationship, i.e. great great great grandfather or something, it could potentially be relevant. Jacknchicken ( talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just have a quick idea I would like to propose here. In the first sentence in the lead, I think it sounds better using the word 'first' as opposed to 'originally' in "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, originally inaugurated on January 20, 2001". Bush has been inaugurated as president twice, and the word 'originally' does not seem to work correctly in that instance. Thoughts? Happyme22 ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, first inaugurated on January 20, 2001. Bush was first elected in the 2000 presidential election, and re-elected for a second term in the 2004 presidential election. He previously served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000 and is the eldest son of former United States President George Herbert Walker Bush
- George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, first inaugurated on January 20, 2001. He previously served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000 and is the eldest son of former United States President George Herbert Walker Bush.
- George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America. He was first elected in 2000, and re-elected for a second term in the 2004 presidential election. He previously served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000 and is the eldest son of former United States President George Herbert Walker Bush
I did not see this anywhere in the article. It needs to be included. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.67 ( talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
That is something that I hope people will keep in mind when editing this article in the future as well as the aticles of future presidents. Too much unjust criticism gives the person you are talking about a free hand to do anything. For some reason, everyone who hates President Bush wants to flock to this article and find a way to weasle bad stuff into it. Ok, it's not like I don't know why but they need to stop even it for their own good. The more hysterical criticism of the President they try to put on this site and others just give the President permission to do anything he wants. It works like this, if you call someone the anti-christ for parting his hair on the wrong side you lose all credibility. If you criticize someone even when they do the right thing, you lose all credibility. Thus, then the President really does do something that is worthy of criticism and legitimate people want to put that up it is seen by others as more of the same crazy talk as before and no one takes it seriously. The recession in the economy that hit in 2001 was predicted 2 years in advance. To say that that recession was the President's fault (either Clinton or Bush) is ignorance of how markets work. President Bush was being blamed for the recession before he even took office. Some people actually believed as they didn't know any better but what is more probable is that the people saying this had a 'need' to believe it. They wanted to believe it and start blaming every problem in the world on President Bush and so they did even though they knew better. You can usually tell those people because they refuse to say 'President' Bush and always refer to him as 'Mr.' Bush which is not his title as long as he holds that office. Now we have a situation wherein so much garbage has been laid at the President's feet that he isn't listening anymore because he doesn't think anyone is going to talk to him in good faith. He thinks everyone just wants to catch him saying something wrong to lay even more stuff at his blame.
The reason that all of this affects the article (besides how our everyday lives are being manipulated by the Feds) is that now legitimate people who have legitimate critical evidence to call the President on feel that they can't lest they be grouped together with the same crowd of people that call President Bush the worst president ever because he owns a dog. Some of us have real issues that we want to see incorporated in a fair article but are drowned out by people that think the U.S. invades Iraq to steal oil (which if true it means that it is the most expensive heist in history). I am asking PLEASE eveyone, stay in reality and keep the article fair if for no other reason then so that the real life arguments can stand on their merrits. If you really think that President Bush is such a bad president then you shouldn't need to put crazy stuff up here as the truth would be bad enough.
The Hurricane Katrina section needs work and a new section about the recent immigration law that tries to enforce 'English Only' onto the incoming population should be created and done factually and fairly. It should be no surprise I don't like the new law as it increases the disadvantage that Louisiana has to the other Anglophone states but on Wikipedia we need to be factual. If we aren't factual then we might as well not even have the thing up.-- Billiot 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, here is but one news piece about it. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION_QA?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT The important section is as follows
I think this is pretty telling and I am in the process of getting a copy of the actual law from a lawmaker so that it can be reviewed. America has had a very long history of Anglophones forcing their language on other people and this law is just another example of Louisiana being at a severe disadvantage to the Anglophone, common law states. Why isn't there a section to allow Francophones into Louisiana? That is my question that no one wants to answer or can't with a straght face.-- Billiot 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It is important to not overreact to this one section. I am an imigrant to this country from Russia and when I started my citizenship process in 1993 I had to take English classes and show that I was learning English language and American History. This has been standard practice for a very very long time. Boris B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.163.210 ( talk) 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Katrina section, Michael Brown is referred to as being a 'horse trader,' but according to the articles " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown" and " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Arabian_Horse_Association" his position with their organization is listed as Judges and Stewards Commissioner. The article about Brown describes his tenure in the IAHA involving investigations and disciplinary actions against at least one horse breeder, not participating in the sale of horses. It should be altered to read: "First, leaders from both parties attacked the president for having appointed incompetent leaders to positions of power at FEMA, most notably Michael D. Brown,[103] who was Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, (IAHA), from 1989-2001, before commanding FEMA." This gives an accurate description of Mr. Brown's position before joining FEMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 ( talk) 21:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I think the President would be proud to mention this new book by daughter Jenna Bush - [http://www.amazon.com/Anas-Story-Journey-Jenna-Bush/dp/0061379085/ref=sr_1_4/102-1544700-0032916?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192046380&sr=1-4 Ana's Story: A Journey of Hope] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.77.150 ( talk) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on the 2000 election that reads, "On election day, November 7, 2000 ... 537 votes out of 6 million cast, making it the 30th state he carried."
Suggest this be removed from George W Bush page and put on 2000 Presidential Election page and the Bush v Gore supreme court case page. The details are mind-numbingly long for what is supposed to be a biographical page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granthursin ( talk • contribs)
It seems to me there should be at least some mention in the lead section about the fact that Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, not elected through the regular election process. This is a pretty big distinction. TheUniverseHatesMe 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Around a year ago, an argument was made by myself (older account, The_Other_Other) for the non-NPOV of the "war president" reference. The proceeding discussion was a consensus that the reference did indeed violate NPOV guidelines. Since then, the entire discussion has been suspiciously deleted (it doesn't appear in the archives, anyway), and after a bit of back-and-forth (see here and here) without acknowledging the misrepresentation argument, the reference has been restored. So again, I will restate the case for its removal. Since this is clearly a controversial issue, I'll refrain from editing until a consensus emerges one way or the other.
The article currently reads as follows:
Running as a self-described "war president" in the midst of the Iraq War, [1] Bush won re-election in 2004; [2] his presidential campaign against Senator John Kerry was successful despite controversy over Bush's prosecution of the Iraq War and his handling of the economy. [3] [4]
The sighted reference for the "war president" quote is as follows ( link):
[Bush:] I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
My objections are as follows:
(1) "War president" is taken somewhat out of context from the original quote. Without clarification, "war president" heavily implies that Bush is, in whatever sense, pro-war. Bush clarified the self-description as "I make decisions . . . in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind." Bush's statement was along the lines of "Because a war is going on, I am constantly involved in issues concerning the war and it is constantly on my mind." This is very different from "I like war, and intend to get this country involved in it to an extent that is far greater than the norm", which is closer to the implied meaning of the quote as presented in the article.
(2) The quote was taken from an oral interview, not a written one, and later transcribed into a written document, without qualifying it as spoken dialog. This may not seem like a big deal, but it raises a couple notable issues. Firstly, written dialog varies significantly from oral dialog, partly because the social context is very different and also because responses are not thought out. Secondly, the oral-to-text transition inevitably and unconditionally removes all . It also opens the door to scribe bias (e.g., including "um"s while omitting subtle qualifiers like "no", "well", "actually", etc.), which is rather blatantly evident in the text version of the interview.
(3) The quote is non-NPOV, even if it fairly documents something Bush said, in that it doesn't represent Bush's general advocacy. It may be true that many people view Bush as a war president, but if you asked Bush if he considered himself a war president, I'm sure he would not hesitate to qualify his previous spontaneous statement. "Self-described" implies that Bush accepts and endorses the view that he is a "war president", which is far from accurate. "Bush once issued the oral statement 'I am a war president'" is fair and accurate; Bush describes himself as a 'war president' is not.
Again, I realize that the issue is controversial, so I suggest we wait for a consensus to form before making a (hopefully final) conclusion. Please do not treat it as the '08 election. ;-)
-- XDanielx 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Can someone please change the wording on the main page from "pleaded guilty" to "plead guilty"
Context - "He pleaded guilty, was fined $150, and had his driver's license suspended until 1978 in Maine."
Is it also possible to have the word Dickface removed from the first paragraph? It wrecks any neutrality the article is supposed to have. Jacinta.s 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems unjustifiably omissive that not a single mention of fascism or authoritarianism is included in an article about a man large segments of America and the world consider its modern epitome. It's also a little peculiar that there's no summary under the criticism subheading, but just an immediate link to a separate page that itself contains no mention of fascism or authoritarianism. Is it our job to legitimize this man, or to post an unbiased NPOV article about him? Wercloud 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is susposed to a neutral presentation of the facts, not an opinion peice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.162.98 ( talk • contribs) 22:24, August 16, 2007
Oh my god… I think I can put this whole argument to rest right now. Finding a “reliable source” would entail finding information from a source that is qualified to make the statement “Bush is a fascist” or “Bush is a totalitarian”. An editorial or an opinion poll does not meet this criterion. Editorials and opinion polls are opinions, not facts and they don’t belong here. I don’t care how big and “reliable” the source is be it the New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ect. The only thing you will find in any of those sources is opinions from writers and opinion polls. Opinions don’t belong in Wikipedia, it’s an encyclopedia. Can you think of any source that would unequivocally show that Bush is in fact a fascist? I can’t even think of a place to find that kind of info let alone a source that would be qualified to make that statement. Opinions from world leaders of nations who are at odds with the U.S. don’t count either. They’re obviously going to be biased and have a conflict of interest. The simple fact of the matter is that in a little more time Bush won’t be in office anymore, we’ll have a new president and this whole thing will start over again with someone new. I don’t see how you call someone a fascist and totalitarian when they haven’t been in office long enough to prove that. Presidents can only serve two terms of four year. I think the entire discussion is kind of silly when someone is only able to hold power for such a little amount of time. Now, if Bush does something insane like refuse to leave office at the end of his last term then I think he would meet the definitions of the words that so many people throw around without knowing there true power and meaning. The entire argument above is nothing more then soap boxing and POV pushing from both sides. It’s all entirely silly. I know it’s hard to separate personal opinions and passions from one’s editing on Wikipedia. God knows there has been plenty of times when I’ve just wanted to go over to the Hugo Chavez article and replace the entire thing with profanity and a picture of a giant douche but that’s not what the point of this whole Wikipedia thing is. I think we can all agree that we just need to all calm down, drop this argument, and all try to make sure we leave our personal feelings and passions at the door when we put on our Wiki hats. Thanks! Elhector 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The reference to polling data is dead on. If someone could provide poll results from a credible source (gallup) that indicated that the majority of Americans or the world at large considers Bush to be a facist it would be relevant. Unless there is statistically significant data to support such a statement it is nothing but posturing and soapboxing. Also, on a personal note, as an emigree from Soviet Russia despite the fact that I do not like President Bush, I am personally disgusted to even hear someone consider him as a modern epitome of Facism. Please set your prejudices aside and deal with facts. And go read about some of my former countrymen. Boris B
On a related note, would it be relevant to include mention of Bush signing into law an executive order outlawing protest against war in Iraq? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29 and http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.70.7 ( talk) 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Seriously the executive order prohibits the material support, not vocal support, of the insurrectionists in Iraq. Freedom of Speech is unaffected. Providing aid, succor or monetary support to the insurrectionists could result in a hold on your assetts. Please check facts. Boris B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.203.117 ( talk) 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:SUMMARY and the Manual of Style, the "Cabinet appointments" and "Domestic policy" sections need at least two sentences of text. Currently they just have see-main links. ← BenB4 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposing a reference to GWB's possible use of cocaine, or at least a topic on the accusations of such?
see: Hatfield's 'Fortunate Son'[ [6]]
If there is an inclusion of Bill Clinton's 'I didn't inhale' on his page, shouldn't this topic be covered for Bush as well? 24.5.74.180 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just hold on a minute - I recall him denying he had used since 1974, which is not the same thing.
02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 as a result of the Florida outcome. However, he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes[48] making him the first president elected without at least a plurality of the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison in 1888.[49][50]
What about the 1992 and 1996 elections? Bill Clinton did not receive a plurality of the vote either time. He had the most votes out of the three main candidates, but received less than 50% of the popular vote both times. 69.149.39.142 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would someone kindly remove the line "Among presidential scholars, he is considered one of the worst U.S. presidents to hold the office" from the intro. It may well be true in the future, but seeing as his term isn't even over, it's mildly POV. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.175.36 ( talk) 10:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Every single word of it was perfectly true in every way, whether he has been kicked out yet or not. Please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.218 ( talk) 03:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The latest round of vandalism to this article seems particularly difficult to undo. Immediately after President Bush's full name (the first words of the article) and before his birthdate is written (a.k.a. The Devil) I have been unable to revert it like the otehr articles, and even trying to delete the portion manually is unsuccessful, as the vandalism does not show on the edit page. But I've refreshed with different browsers, and the slight against him is visible. Is this due to the protected status, or just a clever method of vandalism? Yookaloco 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"At the beginning of his first term, Bush was regarded by some as lacking legitimacy due to his narrow victory in Florida and the attendant controversy surrounding his overall victory, which included accusations of vote suppression and tampering." Isn't this by definition weasel-wording, and therefore, inappropriate? CBoz 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the article makes note of the president's approval rating in the opening segment, shouldn't it be kept up to date instead of referring to a single polling that is more than a month old? A site like this: " http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm" keeps track of the more recent polls tracking the president's approval and disapproval ratings, so shouldn't the article be updated to reflect the most recent data available? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 ( talk) 21:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I think there needs to be more crticism here. And how about a section on 'Bushisms' and what a bad public speaker he is. Xavier cougat 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! And I'm sure Bush is a nice man, too!
^ that was a sarcastic joke, right..? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.53.37.218 (
talk)
03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the birthplace listed as New Haven, US in the summary/stats box under his picture? It should be New Haven, CT in order to be consistent with all the other presidents pages. This could be misleading to readers who are not aware of the state in which New Haven is located. This inaccuracy is all the more suspicious in light of the image that GW Bush portrays (i.e. that he is "from" Texas, and distances himself from New England)
75.7.11.47 ( talk) 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo has placed an image in the foriegn perceptions section. It's basically a stencil with an image of Bush and it says "worst president" on it. In an effort to prevent an edit war I'm trying to start a discussion here concerning it since it's been removed and re-added a few times now. My personal opinion is that this image does not belong here. It's in the foriegn perception section yet the text in the image is in english and I'm fairly sure I've only seen this image on t-shirts here in the United States, so i highly doubt it's a foriegn image. Personally I think this image would belong in the Bush Controversy page or the Bush Criticism page (i believe both those pages exist) Anyways, let's discuss this before an edit war starts. Elhector 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Overall this is really actually pretty darn good, this is the first time I've read it. I did note one error, in the Domestic perceptions section, there is a line:
"Many Republicans began criticizing Bush on his policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Territories.[162]"
The USA Today article referenced only lists two Republican representatives, and uses the term "some" rather than "many" in describing the opposition. Possibly that should be updated here, or more references to additional representative comments should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmathies ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an Australian student strike campaign known as " Walkout against George W. Bush" (WAG) going on to protest about George Bush coming to Australia for the Asia Pacific forum on Economic Cooperation. I think this should be added to the article under the Criticism section. Do you agree? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just read the article and in general it seems to be quite good.
I did feel that in a few areas it was too brief and there were some notable omissions:
1) The fact that Bush filled two vacancies on the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito) is quite an important event in his presidency and should probably be at least mentioned somewhere in the article.
2) It also seems to me that general re-assertion of the authority of the executive branch vs the legislative and the judicial branches is an important theme of the entire Bush presidency, where he appears likely to have a substantial lasting impact. So perhaps something could be mentioned about that? Maybe also a few words about relations with Congress?
3) In the Immigration section there is currently no mention of the fact that a comprehensive immigration reform bill was actually prepared with the Bush administration's help, that it was introduced in the Senate, that Bush actively supported it, and that the bill died in the Senate on a cloture motion. Similar info is rightly provided in the Social Security section of the article. Arguably, the immigration reform bill constituted a more notable event because of the public reaction and debate it generated, because it had an actual chance of passing, and because it appears to have greater political consequences.
Regards,
Nsk92
03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A Question
I have read that President Bush suffers from Dyslexia. (I apologise if this has been brought up before). Is this True? Incorrect? Or a Stupid Joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.132.21 ( talk) 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
when you compare bush 20+ years ago, he right now appears to have suffered a stroke, he also has balance problems "he walks like he's balancing his weight with some difficulty arms wide open" and his face slurs to one side when he actively talks. Markthemac 08:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
President George W. Bush is not a representative of Christian faith and his religious affiliation should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.22.40 ( talk • contribs)
A personal biography that omits a person's stated religous beliefs, when that person is a public figure who makes a great deal out of his Christianity, is seriously deficient. Your are correct this is not a theocracy, it is a state with religious freedom. Please be careful that we do not confuse seperation of church and state, with complete suppression of church. A man is entitled to his religious views, and is even entitled to attempt to get policy passed based on his views. If you wish me to site relevant SC cases on seperation of church and state I will and, oh never mind I'll stop being polite. Your statement about this not being a Theocracy offends me greatly as it demonstrates an intolerance of and a bigotry towards religion. No matter whether the man is President or a garbage man he is entitled to his religious beliefs and those beliefs are relevant in a biography of him.
Thank You----BorisB
...he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard...
not
...he was discharged for the Texas Air National Guard...
24.22.214.91 ( talk) 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I am removing these flags from the infobox. If anyone can come up with an encyclopedic reason to restore them, here would be the place to do it. -- John 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the last sentence at the end of the fourth paragraph. Am I the only one who thinks this is a non-sequitur? MessedRocker ( talk) 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is the photograph captioned "George W. Bush Jr" when the article itself says "However, because the son's full name is not exactly the same as his father's (the younger is George Walker Bush as opposed to the elder George Herbert Walker Bush), the "Jr." is incorrect"? Be consistent! MacAuslan 08:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the opening preamble section there's a bit about Bush's approval ratings. It sights the historic highs and lows he has managed to achieve, going on to say he's reached lower approval ratings than any president for 35 years. Well and thorough, but is it necessary once these points are made to have to say "Only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon scored lower.[10]"? Seems a bit overboard in the opening paragraphs of a biography. Thanks. 125.174.223.253 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is really no reason for the extended working vaction bit during the Katrina Section.
I agree, it seems to be a criticism outside of the criticism section, and therefore should be excised from that part. If anyone wants to keep it, I suggest that we move it to the perceptions and criticisms section, as the "working vacation" seems to belong there. -- 142.58.176.123 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Katrina, I was wondering if anyone planned on adding the exchanges between George W. Bush and the authorities of Louisiana before the hurricane hit? That Bush urged evacuations, but the that the advice was ignored? 74.138.95.115 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)New&naive
Yeah, that's right, Ray Nagin DID IGNORE BUSH'S PLEA TO ORDER AN EVACTUATION, AND I PUT IT ON THIS ARTICLE AND IT WAS REVERTED BECAUSE IT WASN'T CITED!! I'm a very busy student, but I guess I can find time to find a source I can use to cite the information, perhaps tomarrow. But I don't think it's neutral point of view to show one side of the issue but not the other. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
n August of 2006, Lakehead University of Thunder Bay launched an international advertising campaign dubbed "Yale Shmale," that features a goofy image of Bush with the title'Yale University, Class of 1968'. [1] The "Yale Shmale" advertising campaign pokes fun at U.S. President George W. Bush and his Ivy League alma mater. The poster reads, "“Graduating from an Ivy League university doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smart,” [2] Phase 2 of the awareness campaign replaced the headline “Yale Shmale” and its image of the U.S. President with the message: “Be Smart. Choose a university that’s right for you.”
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me this is a truth, merely stating facts. The 'bashing' was exactly the intent of the ads, would you not agree ?
I feel sorry for Bush, and for North America, that's not the issue here.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not only President Bush who was deceived about Iraq, so were alot of the Military in the Canadian Services.
Currently in Canada the Prime Minister has ousted a Cabinet Minister and stated that he won't be running in the next election as a Conservative. There is good and bad in all. Believing that there is no darker side is a real problem in todays society.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
References
I have entered the following several times only to have it deleted:
Bush has repeatedly warned the world about terrorism - “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
“If anybody harbours terrorists they’re a terrorist; if they fund a terrorist they’re a terrorist; if they house terrorists they’re terrorists – I mean I can’t make it any more clearly (sic)."
NB - Wiki entries show us that terrorists, e.g. [Luis Posada Carriles] [9] and [Orlando Bosch] [10] are currently being harbored by the USA.
Why is this entry being deleted? and by whom? when it is so telling about this man?
If you assist a terrorist and you're considered a terrorist then shouldn't Bush be considered a terrorist? How about his father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.149.229 ( talk) 07:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Can Bush be tried as a war criminal? This article should include that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.242.133 ( talk) 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that 'fringe parties' (give their names) have suggested this. It is a truth, not the whole truth, perhaps not a credible truth, but still a reality.
There should be some defense of President Bush outlining how he and those around him were given incorret information leading to the invasion. (one must believe that President Bush was falsely informed - he cannot be held responsible for information given to him that was false )
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
rubbish a president is ALWAYS responsible for every part of government under him, so also responsible for falsifying information, as all material was proven false by the UN the day it was shown Markthemac 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the entry is as valid as one at Wiki about Herman Göring, "He said that he had no control over the actions or the defense of the others...". Bush of course will try to use the excuse that he was lied to so his subsequent decisions were their fault. (Your use of "rubbish" isn't particularly Wiki conversation polite by the way!) Meraloma 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
When the lead says that his handling of the economy is controversial (I know the lead isn't the place to get into specifics), but what does this refer to? I mean, unemployment is at 4 year lows, economy has grown 20% since 2001, wages are starting to go up...I mean, what am I missing? What are the alleged misdeeds to the economy? Thanks so much, Judgesurreal777 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section added by RucasHost ( talk · contribs) for failing WP:NPOV and WP:OR. In addition, it appears to be original research, claiming the hand gesture is the sign of Satan. Links such as http://www.bushisantichrist.com are in no way reliable, and cannot be used. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the section AuburnPilot removed was POV and OR, Bush's religious beliefs are arguably relevant. Religion and religious groups have been enormously meaningful in recent American politics. This section could be written differently. - Che Nuevara 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a ref from biography.com on Bush's conversion to Methodism (from Episcopalianism) and his ensuing increased religious convictions. For his apparent "lapse" later on, I will keep my eye out. - Che Nuevara 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Here's another potentially useful link. - Che 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading about the Don Siegelman case and glanced through here and we do not mention the DOJ at all during the article. Given the massive amount of contraversy surrounding the midterm firing of Prosecutors and the widespread accusations of partisan biases, it needs to be in here. I'll type something up later today, but my questions is why isn't it here already? RTRimmel 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Possible sources:
what's with the picture? i mean, i don't like bush, but that looks like vandalism which i can't revert since it's protected. - 89.136.168.239 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
the picture was just changed and i would like to thank the person/bot who did it. if you have a problem with bush, leave the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisenbery ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As much as someone might not support or like the President, it is our duty as American citizens to have respect for our policians. It sickens me to see the picture with ' Worst President' as the main picture on this page. It would be more appropiate for Wikipedia to perhaps go back to the original White House photo of the Commander in Chief. A.Tarantola Washington DC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.126.26 ( talk) 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yboord028 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree, the picture must show the most positive one available,(whether we like the person or not) as to the 'negative' well probably left to another page of criticisms, and in balance to the entire spectrum of truths.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"It sickens me to see the picture with ' Worst President' as the main picture on this page."
To this comment we should include a positive picture, to exclude all other pictures would create a half-truth. I was not suggesting that we only include a positive picture, but let us not overdo it. For Bush or Saddam same principles must apply.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia isn't just for "American Citizens". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.112.81.129 ( talk) 12:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent news articles have brought to light what Bush considers torture vs what the dictionary considers torture [12]. Anyone have any thoughts on this before I start adding it in? RTRimmel 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone remember that his name use to be George Willard Bush? How come it is not search-able anywhere online? It's like this name never existed... I clearly remember the name when he ran for governor in Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old days ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was George Washington Bush... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.51.182.247 (
talk)
14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from inserting the POV-pushing "Some say..." regarding GWB as a "terrorist." It is inappropriate, and if you continue, you will be reported for disruptive editing. And, yes, your initial POV-pushing edit was marked "minor", a common tactic to hide the edits from those who don't include minor edits in their watch list. Very deceptive practice, that. K. Scott Bailey 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the following statement should be removed:
However, prior to vetoing the bill, President Bush had recieved sage and learned counsel advocating hope for the 'controversial' innocent:
"Safe Minds warns:
"Under the current administration, mercury has been and will continue to be knowingly injected into the youngest of American citizens. The controversial mercury-containing preservative thimerosal has been linked by thousands of parents as being the cause of their children's mercury poisoning and autism."
"The flu vaccine, which continues to be manufactured with mercury, is recommended for all pregnant women, infants and children despite the fact that the Institute of Medicine in 2001 recommended against the policy of exposing these same sensitive groups to thimerosal containing vaccines."
I think this section is POV for the following reason: It is a minor view from a small group which is critical of GWB in a certain area. It is not a major view shared by many citizens. Hence the section should be removed. Ulner 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Regards. Wales 13:15 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I know the editors of this article have done such a great job in trying to keep the POV out, as President Bush is a controversial public figure. I do express concern over one, what I consider to be minor issue: the placement of the 2004 campaign section. Bush was President during his 2004 campaign, so would it not be more factually accurate to put that subsection in the "Presidency" section? Example: Ronald Reagan... Just a thought, but I think it will benefit the article chronologically-wise. Thanks, Happyme22 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter Keisler is listed as the current AG. Actually, Michael Bernard Mukasey is the nominee and will be AG once Congress confirms him. -- 72.75.91.146 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
On the last paragraph of the introduction. "...[10] the lowest level for any sitting president in 35 years.[11]"
Should this say since Nixon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.2.188 ( talk) 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on, try to read this article neutrally. That's admittedly hard-going, but the tremendous to-do surrounding this person is understated in every sub-point. this is obviously one of the main articles WP is judged by and from an editor's point of view I understand the reluctance to dwell on points of contraversy, but do realise that that mindset subtracts unfairly from the factual and popular truth. What I'm on about is mainly what the article intentionally avoids, merely alludes to or avoids altogether, due to the fact that it would be momentarily unwelcome among some audiences. I wish I could dissect the article all night but I can't and I'll just give one demonstrative example that the whole text should be reviewed by: the Sept. 11 section is completely inaccurate historically because it not only fails to note the contraversial details of his actions that day but obviously dwells solely on the points that are uncontraversial. I haven't gone through the page history but I know from WP that someone will have tried to expand on this and been overruled. This example goes for every point of contention in the article. I know most of you EDITING WP are Americans but I'd remind you with urgency that plenty of those READING it are not, and editorial decisions made to appease factions of the American audience for the sake of avoiding scorn in effect only serve to dissuade the multinational audience. To summarise, where the reporting of modern events is concerned, if a bridge collapses WP discusses it including all aspects of it's contraversy that are popularly reported. This article conspicuously MISRESPRESENTS points of view that are absolutely fundamental for proper understanding of the person and his place in time, and what is an encylopedia for if not to give a WELL-ROUNDED synopis of things? I say the article should be overhauled altogether with a much more tolerant view towards all the points that are generally held to be important in day-to-day discussion of this person. grendelsmother 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Revolving Bugbear, grendelsmother in your judgment if there is an article in the NY Times, the AP, USA Today, and the National Archives about the need to build a levee in order to protect New Orleans from another Category 5 Hurricane and that says if the government ignores this need, it will be guilty of negligence or incompetence, is that story "POV pushing", are the sources "unreliable", and are the authors not doing "original research"? If the answers to all these questions are no, and I challenge anybody to answer yes to any of these, there is no excuse for not being able to mention Bush's failure to extradite or imprison Luis Posada Carriles within the context of criticism on a fundamental flaw in the Bush Doctrine. Pistolpierre 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Pistolpierre, I would like to bring your attention to an important grammatic fact regarding the NYTimes article: Every single sentence which contains the word "Bush" also contains a subjunctive verb. The subjunctive is used for contrary-to-fact or conditional phrases.
The article makes no claim that Bush has rendered an opinion on the subject. It doesn't even make a claim that Bush has ever so much as uttered the man's name. All it says is "If Bush does this, then this could happen." The New York Times is a reliable source for a great many things. The future isn't one of them. - Revolving Bugbear 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the article, Posada Carriles has been released from prison by a Texas judge. The harboring of Posada was mentioned as a consequence for not extraditing him or imprisoning him as a terrorist. So actually your point about the NY Times predicting the future is just bizarre or obscure in the least. If the NY Times writes an article about the need for strengthened levees in New Orleans in order for the Bush Administration to avoid being perceived as negligent in the future, how would you respond to such an article? Would you dismiss the NY Times as a reliable source for commenting on the future as it relates to the past vis à vis the Katrina response. Substitute the Bush Doctrine for the Bush "Marshall Plan" for the Gulf Coast and you will understand my point. If you make a public policy and then ignore it, you are negligent, no? -- Pistolpierre ( talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, this text was already in the article before Pistolpierre added it elsewhere. It's been there since Nov 1. I removed it per the discussion above. - Revolving Bugbear 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I must say, I am surprised at the lack of mention of his religious convictions in this article. The religious right is a major socio-political force in the US and has been instrumental in supporting Bush through both election campaigns. He has made numerous public pronouncements about how his faith has guided his presidential decisions and policy, how he believes that God wanted him to become president, how he believes that human rights were derived from God, the Faith Based Initiative... That's not to say that he's a fundamentalist or evangelist - he keeps quite quiet about specific beliefs on things like creationism, abortion, homosexuality and other vexed questions that play on the religious right's mind. But it seems that his Christianity is a deep part of what drives and guides him and should be given a little more airing in this article. I'm not condoning OR - but this article does look a little odd without at least a brief mention of the faith of maybe the most overtly religious president in living memory. AJKGORDON «» 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm chiming in to this discussion a bit late, but for one thing there's this book I own:
I don't think it is POV at all to talk about President Bush's religion and how, according to this book, it apparently influences him.
These seem pretty significant for the President of the United States, espcially one who has gotten so much criticism. I think mentioning his faith is perfectly approproate and definitely not POV as long as the facts are truthfully presented and the wording is neutral. We mentioned Ronald Reagan's faith in his FA article in the first section! Happyme22 ( talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There was never an assasination attempt on GW Bush. He was no where near the stage and nor was he scheduled to speak anytime soon. Please remove this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberclops ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hate to edit a controversial page such as this, but this is twisted. This is not the lowest approval rate of past (I recall reading Jimmy Carter only received 19% in Star Spangled Men). However, even if the book is wrong or I recall incorrectly, the sentence as it read was not backed up by the source right after it. So I rewrote the sentence so it would be true to the source and not twisting it. There is a difference between an approval rating and a disapproval rating. Redwolf24 ( talk) 03:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've looked around and it appears George has the most archives for a article in all of wiki. This article has 50 some archives. Just an example but, Hitler has 48 archives. I'm not comparing George to Hitler, just that it kinda shows that he's a very controversial guy. So i dunno where this would go in he article, interesting none the less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.146.219 ( talk) 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D) Vermont, has recently stated that the President was not involved in the firings of the eight US Attorneys.
I propose to add this information to the section on this incident. Even though Leahy's made the pronouncement as a move to circumvent the President's assertion of Executive Privilege which the President has invoked to prevent questioning of several key aides by the committee*, it is still relevant that one of the President's staunchest political enemies has cleared him of any involvement in Gonzales' bungling of the incident.
This move clears the way for Leahy to seek contempt citations against Bush aides such as Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers.
If there's no objections, & I'll check back in a few days, then I'll amend the section.
Here's the AP (via FoxNews) story's url: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov29/0,4670,SenateProsecutors,00.html
PainMan ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to US and Australian forces to be more accurate, because Britain took little/no part in the initial bombing phase of Afghanistan, Australian F-111s did. -- TheOnlyJason ( talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding signed comment added by TheOnlyJason ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We the british have put our troops on the line and thats the respect we get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.65.166 ( talk) 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The mere fact that the caption under Mr. Bush's picture reads "biggest moron in the country" (on a protected page, so apparently its not vandalism), should disqualify this article from serious consideration. Further, the tenor an tone of the article is not one of a scholar, who is interested in covering the facts, but of a political activist, who is interested in maligning his subject. As a protected article, Wikipedia itself shares responsibility for this poor effort. And for those commentators who profess that this is a good article, I believe some self-examination is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GolemDeath ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the ridiculous image shown below. This is partisan political propaganda; in no way encyclopedic; and is an entirely unscholarly way to mock and ridicule the president.
Plenty of similar material could be inserted into articles about the Clintons (with FAR more justification), but would be just as unencyclopedic/politically partisan as this image.
Can't this image be deleted from the wikipedia's servers? Only the most rabid Moveon.org fanatics could think this belongs in this article. (Which is not to say there are no circumstances in which it couldn't appear in wikipedia; an article on political or specifically presidential satire could be a place for it. For those seeking an impartial article on the Younger Bush, such partisanship has no place.
Whoever created this "stencil" obviously knows nothing about US presidents. As for worst, the Younger Bush isn't even close: try James Buchannan, Warren G. Harding, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and most of the Gilded Age Chief Magistrates.
PainMan ( talk) 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In the environmental policy it is stated "[h]e did so after the Senate had voted 95–0 on a resolution expressing its disapproval in 1997." This is a little ambiguous; it is unclear in this section if it is meant that the Senate disapproved of the treaty or the President's anticipated actions. 24.243.131.124 ( talk) 07:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I am still confused about the section. It reads:
Upon arriving in office in 2001, Bush withdrew United States support of the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change seeking to impose mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He did so after the Senate had voted 95–0 on a resolution expressing its disapproval of the protocol in 1997. Bush asserted he would not support it because the treaty exempted 80 percent of the world's population [1] and would have cost the economy tens of billions of dollars per year, [2] and was based on the uncertain science of climate change. [3] The Bush Administration's stance on global warming has remained controversial in the scientific and environmental communities during his presidency.
I think it should read something like this:
Upon arriving in office in 2001, Bush continued the United State's policy of non-support for the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, seeking to impose mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He continued this policy after the Senate had voted 95–0 on a resolution expressing its disapproval of the protocol in 1997, during the Clinton administration. Bush asserted he would not support it because the treaty exempted 80 percent of the world's population, etc...
It makes it clear that the senate vote was under the Clinton administration and that the US position on Kyoto did not change when Bush entered office.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first=
(
help)
I was wanting to add this image but of course there isn't much point if it's just gonna be reverted soon after. Would anybody object to it, and if not, suggestions as to the best place for it? Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant to state that George W. Bush is the son of former president George H.W. Bush, but it is irrelevant to talk about a distant unspecified relation to another former president. The nature of genealogy is such that millions of people are "distantly related" to famous people. If there is a direct relationship, i.e. great great great grandfather or something, it could potentially be relevant. Jacknchicken ( talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just have a quick idea I would like to propose here. In the first sentence in the lead, I think it sounds better using the word 'first' as opposed to 'originally' in "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, originally inaugurated on January 20, 2001". Bush has been inaugurated as president twice, and the word 'originally' does not seem to work correctly in that instance. Thoughts? Happyme22 ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, first inaugurated on January 20, 2001. Bush was first elected in the 2000 presidential election, and re-elected for a second term in the 2004 presidential election. He previously served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000 and is the eldest son of former United States President George Herbert Walker Bush
- George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, first inaugurated on January 20, 2001. He previously served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000 and is the eldest son of former United States President George Herbert Walker Bush.
- George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America. He was first elected in 2000, and re-elected for a second term in the 2004 presidential election. He previously served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000 and is the eldest son of former United States President George Herbert Walker Bush
I did not see this anywhere in the article. It needs to be included. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.67 ( talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)