![]() | 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 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
The whole section on presidency seems to not have any type of ordering. The section 3.7 (Civ. lib.) comes before 3.9 (Sept. 11) yet refrances the events of 3.9. Personally the section should follow chronological order. Covah79 ( talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Feb 7, 2008
Section Seems to be missing this
George W. Bush appointed the following justices to the Supreme Court:
Malsmith ( talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The sections dealing with "perceptions" are per se suspect. While I do not doubt that the cited polls took place and I accept the results of those polls as correctly cited, it should be noted that polls are easily manipulated. What questions are asked and what information is given along with the question can tilt the result one way or another. Also, if the party that conducted the poll has an agenda the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt.-- SMP0328. ( talk) 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask how George Bush is in the category American Cheerleaders? Hatmatbbat10 ( talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok.... Hatmatbbat10 ( talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just have to say that I cannot believe that even though this is a locked article, a fairly obvious act of vandalism exists at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.239.13 ( talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that he is doing a good job in the role of presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.46.130 ( talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There's seem to be an edit battle going on regarding when President Bush's term ends. If he finishes the current term, then it will be January 20, 2009. Technically, it could be sooner (death, resignation, or removal). Some keep putting in the end of term assuming President Bush will finish this term. Others keep removing the date, because he could leave sooner. I suggest "January 20, 2009 (assuming he finishes term)." This would cover both contingencies. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous! There has been zero speculation outside the usual fevered imaginations of Bush's ideological enemies, that his term will in any way end prematurely. Until this changes, listing his Constitutional final day of office January 20, 2009 is not in any way "controversial" or even subject to legitimate debate. If you wiki editors and other posters wish to indulge in your left wing fantasies it would be best to do so on a private blog and not a public encyclopedia. You are violating the NPOV policy of Wikipedia by nursing your delusions on his encyclopedia entry. I know it is a tall order...but try to be fair. -RKT4MAYOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKT4MAYOR ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- The main Wiki article on Bill Clinton contains extensive info on the (unproven) sexual allegations made by Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. And yet the main Wiki George W. Bush article contains no mention of Margie Schoedinger (who filed a rape lawsuit against Bush and who was found dead of a gunshot wound the following year). True, Schoedinger's allegation was unproven, but then so were Willey's and Broaddrick's allegations. - Why the Wiki double-standard? - More importantly, why is this considered vandalism on a discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeMongo ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign. DeMongo ( talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. http://www.fortbendstar.com/Archives/2003_4q/122403/n_Woman%20who%20filed%20lawsuit%20found%20dead.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.156.186 ( talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That's quite a double standard we have going. So the logic is pretty much if someone did something once, you don't have to prove they did it twice? That makes a whole lot of sense. Stop Me Now! ( talk) 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph as it appears to be a unique case and highly unrepresentative of the subject as a whole, and thus is not notable enough to warrant a paragraph in a tight article like this. Albania is famous for being hated by just about every other country in the world, much like the United States, so I don't find the support surprising.
Herunar (
talk)
17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that mention about Bush being a 2001 Nobel Prize nominee should be removed.
First, the statement appears to be factually incorrect. The source cited in the article to justify this statement, [2], says as much: Despite a rumor that circulated late in 2001, President Bush wasn't amongst the nominees for the 2001 prize...In February 2002, however, reports began circulating that members of the Norwegian Nobel committee had let it slip that George W. Bush was among the persons (along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani) being considered for the 2002 Peace Prize.
So it seems that Bush was nominated for the 2002 prize, rather then for the 2001 one.
Second, the source cited, snopes.com, seems like a rather weak choice of a source for this kind of information. There ought to be some more direct references in mass media.
Third, and most importantly, the mere fact that some-one was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize does not seem to be sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned here. That is certainly the case when we are talking about a U.S. President. If he won the prize or at least if he was considered a serious contender, that would have been a different story. However, the same snopes.com article says:
The Reuters news agency noted, however: "Neither Bush nor Blair is likely to win. Bishop Gunnar Staalsett, a member of the secretive five-member Nobel committee which elects the winner, has spoken out against the U.S.-led and British-backed strikes on Afghanistan." President Bush was reportedly one of 156 candidates considered for the 2002 Peace Prize, which was awarded in October 2002 to former President Jimmy Carter.
I did a bit of google-searching and it looks like President Bush was nominated by a single rightwing Norwegian MP, see [3]. It seems to me that this episode perhaps belongs as a footnote together with various oddities and curiosities related to President Bush's biography, but not in the first sentence of his biographical entry, where it appears now. Regards, Nsk92 ( talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is relevant to acknowledge him being in the Skulls and Bones. The Anti-Vandalism King ( talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does attempting to go to this website result in getting to this article? [9] -- SMP0328. ( talk) 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
George Bush has recognized independence of Kosovo, and we should note this fact in the article. Bosniak ( talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems interesting that George Bush's wiki page has been locked from editing, no doubt of course from various vandalism, when in fact at least one thing so far has been missed.
In the 'Child-hood to Mid-Life' section, someone changed the entry to read as follows: Bush was raised in [vulgar language removed]|Midland]] and Houston, Texas
Maybe the admins might want to change that?!
-- 24.31.174.129 ( talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If some moderator could please fix this, that would be great. (Kinda says something about me being straight, that aint right?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.67.125 ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a recent edit
[1] Despite President Bush's lack of involvement in this affair, he still maintains the claim of Executive Privilege for his aides. [2] As Bush has repeatedly stated he has no involvement in this case, "this calls into question any claim of executive privilege."
Executive Privilege in the United States requires the direct involvement of the president of the United States. As Bush has repeated stated he has no involvement in the Midterm firings, he therefor has no claim of executive privilege and therefor the fact that he still claims is significant. Given that it comes up in every meaningful article (including the sources within the section) but is not mentioned in the section proper is a rather glaring omission. Hopping over to the Executive Privilege section of the wiki, all cases directly involve the president of the United States and the United States v. Nixon sets its precedent as requiring the President's involvement. Hence, this calls into question any claims of said privilege and makes it worthy of entry. RTRimmel ( talk) 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, stop edit warring, and giving undue weight to a matter of little importance. Leahy's opinion about the executive privilege is irrelevant. Of course he thinks it's that limited. He's a) a Democrat, and b) a Congressman. On both counts it's not surprising that he has this opinion, but that doesn't mean it's notable enough to be worth mentioning here, let alone giving it a whole damn paragraph. What is notable is that in the course of his attack on Bush he admitted that there was clear evidence that Bush was not involved in the firings. That is notable, and it's appropriate to quote his exact words in making this admission – and no more.
Dowdifying, or "Quote mining" as you call it, would be if he'd said something like "the president's supporters claim there's clear evidence...but that's not true", and "it seems like there's clear evidence...but appearances are deceptive", and someone quoted just "there's clear evidence...". That would be dishonest. That's what Maureen Dowd did to Bush in the famous incident that gave Dowdifying its name. But that's not what's going on here. Leahy said Bush wasn't involved, and he meant it; naturally his purpose wasn't out support Bush but to attack him, by drawing a conclusion from Bush's non-involvement. But that doesn't make the quote any less genuine, or any less important. It's an admission, and an admission against interest, which is the best kind of admission. It should stay, without the rest of what Leahy said, which isn't relevant.
As for the fact that Bush wouldn't let his advisors testify, that's barely notable at all, and doesn't deserve more than one sentence. The space you've given it is undue weight, and it must be reverted.
-- Zsero ( talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it at all possible to have the list of references in a drop down menu, as in hide them by default but reveal them at the click of a button? Because at my default resolution and text size the references measure eight pages long, just under a quarter of this article is taken up by references alone. JayKeaton ( talk) 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at any other poll, none of them even come close to 19%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=19 I don't see any other 19%. Redsox7897 ( talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Will they ever learn? Will a moderator please delete the vandalism on top of the George W. Bush page? Brokenspirits ( talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This week, Wikisource is collaborating on works by and about George Walker Bush. Please consider helping out; if you dont have time to transcribe documents, we also need help identifying important documents that should be transcribed, so ... hit the talk page! See you there. John Vandenberg ( talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Why can't articles like this be fully protected? Also, why can't vandalism from REGISTERED USERS spark full protection. Footballfan190 ( talk) 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There were reasons other than waterboarding that Bush stated for vetoing the bill. Please amend to note that waterboarding (Section 327) was only a small part of the bill. Full details of the veto can be found here. Also, if this is going to be here, please include "H.R. 2082" (the bill's number). -- 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel we need a paragraph or two on Bush's alteration of the Intelligence Community, namely removing the DCI as the oversight for the CIA and the creation of Homeland Security and if possible projections on what Clinton Obama or McCain might do during their administrative transitions to the White House. Would they have the authority to undermine Bush's architecture, could they revert it, would they? It might be a little tangent but I definitely feel that the article needs something to describe the effect he's had on international and domestic espionage, ect besides extensive use of NSA eavesdropping, ty and sorry for spelling. Sanitycult ( talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not normal for a president to become a lame duck until after the November elections of his or her fourth year in office. It is important to add a section about Bush becoming a lame duck after the mid term elections of his second term. Also it is important to note that the military has refused to cooperate with any possible attack of Iran, in fact it is surprising that one general was not court-martialed after refusing a direct order from the president. -- Gonezales ( talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What part of "an elected official who has lost political power" are you missing? -- Gonezales ( talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but out of politeness you will always find some reporters who decline to call him a lame duck until November 2008. --
Gonezales (
talk)
17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As to Iran - there is still a lot of posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. It is worthwhile noting that Nixon was bereaved of his finger from the trigger, because insiders were afraid that he would start a nuclear war. A similar situation is manifesting in a less brutal manner. I would also like to see a flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house. I don't think that anyone should think that ideas originate from the top, nor are they approved at the top. The most likely decision maker appears to be Cheney, but the role of other advisers is clearly significant. Bush says that he is the decider, but that seems to be just idle rhetoric. -- Gonezales ( talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Now it is my turn to ask you to keep your "of course" opinions to yourself. Feel free to start the section with the "wanting" to attack Iran portion. I'll look for some sources for you to add to the "refusal" portion. None of the above were intended to show mutiny, all were intended to show intent to attack Iran. Below are the sources intended to show mutiny.
-- Gonezales ( talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, I am here to provide truth that I have found in reliable sources, not to find truth here. If I don't find truth here, I am here to fix it. It is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to speculate on the schemes of the bush administration, but well within scope to document plans that have been revealed. I'm not talking about contingency plans, I'm talking about actual plans. In this case I'm not even talking about plans as much as objectives. Is an objective of the administration to invade Canada? No. Is it an objective to attack Iraq? I don't know, and like I said I have no opinion, but there are plenty of references that make it sound like it is. Now the question is how do you put that into an encyclopedia? -- Gonezales ( talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I put John McCain as Bush's successor in the succession box. [11] Surely, with the note that McCain is only the presumptive nominee, this is acceptable? -- Philip Stevens ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
He is not the nominee until he gives his "official" acceptance speech at the RNC later this year. We should wait until then to add him to the succession box. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So we are ignoring the 19% poll, did someone finally find something that said it was a bad poll. Please throw that up there as a source. And the sources provided indicated that Bush's lowest approval was a Newsweek poll of 26%, and sepearatly Reuters has his lowest at 24%. Both are verifyable and lower than the 'lowest' section we currently have up. Unless of course Newsweek and Reuters are both also unreliable? I'll fix it later, but again I'm inclined to leave the 19% up there unless someone can find me something that says that its not a reliable number. So far we've had two people saying that it sounds bad but haven't backed anything up with anything other than their own gut feelings. And then acted on it. I'll drop the ARG poll like a dirty fish if someone can find something that indicates that someone non-partisan and crediable considers it a bad number, the worst I found was that they used occasionally questionable methodology in an article that was describing common polling practices during the Artic Wildlife Refugee drilling debate(drilling vs energy exploation or otherwise modifying the wording to gain approval), but the polling was considered 'good' then so I'm inclined to wonder why the same methodology as used by other organizations is bad now? RTRimmel ( talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
i think a strong case can be made for not allowing poll numbers into the article until they've 'aged' at least one month. this is wikipedia, not wikinews. as it stands the article suffers from recentism. one thing is clear though, it's not appropriate to cherry pick which poll to quote in the article. one reliable poll organization should be chosen, and should remain the standard. gallup? ARG is not nearly as widely quoted as gallup (or the other 'big ones', names of which escape me). either that, or we add a section purely on popularity polls, and quote four or five of them each time new results come out. not a practical or encyclopedic path, that. Anastrophe ( talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've rationalised the collection of polls into one footnote. As it stood, the sentence in the lede was simply false; it said that Gallup had found a high of 90 and a low of 24, and that is just not true. The lowest Gallup found was 29. The bulk of polls have shown lows in the low 30s. The CNN story says the 31 that it just found is the lowest it's ever found; that's not at all notable, because it's right in the mainstream of the polls, as shown at Polling Report and Real Clear Politics. The only two polls that have found significantly less than 30 are Reuters/Zogby at 24, and ARG at 19; those are certainly noteworthy enough to be in the footnote, which is where I've put them. So the footnote now has these five links. -- Zsero ( talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that if you vandalize the page George W. Bush, you can get arrested? Footballfan190 ( talk) 07:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
Why is it that this article which is the most heavily vandalised of all articles on wikipedia does not get full protection? Why is it that we have to have users constantly refreshing this page every single second for vandalism when this could save them a lot of time by having no one edit the page. Having it semi-protected is useless, people just constantly make new users and even if you block their IP address there will NEVER be a stop to the vandalism. Have it fully protected so only admins can edit the page. This will save a lot of time for everyone. Roadrunnerz45 ( talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In the economy section about this president, the very important negative economic details are somehow omitted. How can you describe economic downturns without describing: 1) Tech bubble bursting just PRIOR to bush administration 2) Devastating effect of 9/11 on economy. Leaving these important economic influences out of the article makes it appear as if you attribute all of the economic downturns to the president - only leftist bias in editors could be the reason for leaving out these indisputable economic FACTS which had more bearing on economy during his administration than anything he has done. His policies have been introduced largely to try to offset losses which occured as a result of these incidents beyond his control. 24.197.149.26 ( talk) 05:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In the section on foreign policy, there is a quirky and awkward jump into the following sentence: "Some national leaders alleged abuse by U.S. troops and called for the U.S. to shut down detention centers in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere." I think this quote should continue as follows: Sadly, none of these 'national leaders' ever 'alledged abuse' by the regimes of Saddam, the Iranian fanatics, Kim Jung Il, or Pol Pot for that matter. These 'national leaders' appear to prefer to 'look away' when there are gross human rights violations by true dictators, but they become very disturbed when the US imprisons some known terrorsists. 24.197.149.26 ( talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In the section 'the war on terror' there are several statements that are apparently politically biased conjecture. Simply because something has a 'source' does not make it 'fact'. I urge people to read this section and ask themselves 'is Wikipedia left biased?'. You shouldn't post these types of subjective commentary without posting the alternative (there are 'sources' on both sides). I am not going to spend any more time on this because if these are not blatantly obvious and doesn't get changed, then the editors are biased. I am starting to think 'this page is protected' is an Orwellian doublespeak meaning 'this page is propogandized for only leftist viewpoints to be expressed'. I imagine they will even delete this entry from discussion. Looks like pretty soon only leftists and those who favor terrorists and dictator states will be able to engage in so called 'free speech'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.149.26 ( talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
According to this tool, the GWB article has been edited 40K times now. here's the edit by MagnusA. Congrats ;) -- Winterus ( talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a movie being filmed in the northwest Louisiana area about Bush. Though I loathe him I suggest those that mean no ill will watch for the film for perhaps further edits. The film will be called either "Dubya" or "W". I believe the latter since the former would best befit a comedy (though his presidency is much of one already) Jerky Chid ( talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism." I think the article shows that he has seen "heated criticism" since he was the Republican nominee until today, and though you could make the case it has fluctuated, such as right after 9/11, it has been heated and intense all other times. He wasn't given a reprieve after his re-election. I propose this sentence instead; "Bush has received heated criticism throughout his presidential career." That at least would be accurate. Thoughts and modifications welcome! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Introduction to this article is excessively long. Some of the material in the Introduction should either be deleted or moved into the main body of the article. An Introduction is supposed to be short synopses of its article. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I disagree. What is a unscientific a poll is a poll and not need to be statistic to be meaningful. If the world belives in a flat earth does that mean it is true? Bush is the worst president because he behaves so relevent to other presidents as stated by majority of historians; this is logical and deductive reasoning. Hence it makes it sientific!
Another report has come out stating that Bush knew more than he let on, and is basically standing behind a shaky legal definition of torture so he can say he haven't been or hasn't authorized. One can argue about the specifics, but in any case we should have something listed in the main article concerning this. Before someone goes through and deletes the additions because they disagree witht hem, and you know who you are, please explain why it should be removed and what should be mentioned in its place. Google Torture president and you get millions of hits, many of them are about Bush. This needs to be mentioned, though I'm unsure as to of what degree, thoughts? RTRimmel ( talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Bill Clinton was never impeached. Please rephrase to "calls for impeachment" or something. the current entry is incorrect. 139.85.238.86 ( talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC) AM
I just want to mention that the talk page archive automation that has just been put in place is an excellent idea. Jpers36 ( talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe this detail "despite scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test" shows a bit of bias against bush.. 24.16.192.56 ( talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Either after mentioning of his current 19% approval rating or in the information about impeachment movement, it may be worth mentioning that Bush is not expected to be impeached as the Democratic-controlled Congress can't muster enough courage or even half the courage that the Republican-controlled Congress had when they impeached a President with an approval rating above 50%. Wotring3 ( talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the third paragraph states: "As president, Bush signed into law a US$1.35 trillion tax cut program in 2001,[3]" It should be followed with "This tax cut was not accompanied by reduced spending and resulted in the National Debt increasing for only the second time in 50 Years (Reagan's Administration being the other time).[226]
226. National Debt History by President. White House Data on Gross National Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Factsonly1 ( talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Under: "Additionally, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, though the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investigation of Bush concluded that he did not have enough insider information before his stock sale to warrant a case.[33]" .. should we add that the head of the SEC, at the time of the investigation, was formerly GWH's personal counsel? Do you think that might have influenced the decision that there was "not enough information"? James D. Rockefeller ( talk) 12:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Pure speculation?? I think not. Bruce Hiler, the associate director of the SEC's enforcement division, who wrote the letter to Bush's attorney saying the investigation was being terminated, now represents former Enron president Jeff Skilling in matters before the government. Richard Breeden, the SEC chairman at the time, was deputy counsel to Bush's father when he was Vice President and was appointed SEC chairman when H.W. Bush became President. James Doty, the SEC's general counsel at the time, helped W. Bush negotiate the contract to buy the Texas Rangers.
Martha Stewart did time for less, and she wasn't even an "insider." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.186.36 ( talk) 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
George W. Bush is probably the worst president in history, I have no clue why this 'article' praises him like he's god. Please tone it down a notch. Dwilso 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone take away the "Jerks"s over his picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaman4ever ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"2000 Presidential candidacy Main article: United States presidential election, 2000 Bowing out from the Texas governorship, Bush sought his own bid for President of the United States in 2000."
Bush did not "bow out" from the Texas governorship until December 21, 2000, twelve days after the Supreme Court ruling. He ran for president while he was the governor and only resigned a month before taking the oath of office. The "bowing out" sounds like he resigned in order to run for president, which he certainly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.15.100 ( talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I found an interesting link << http://duggmirror.com/politics/What_8_Years_of_Bush_and_Cheney_Have_Done_to_the_U_S_Economy/>> concerning the Economy under Bush. Is it link worthy in the article proper? RTRimmel ( talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the Governor of Texas subsection of the Elected positions section:
“ | The Bush campaign was criticized for allegedly using controversial methods to disparage Richards. | ” |
This sentence was unsourced and vague. What were the "controversial methods" that "allegedly" (i.e. unproven) occurred? Who made this criticism? If sourced answers, that aren't vague, can be given to these questions then they can be put in the article, but unsupported vague claims do not. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DA103BF935A35750C0A966958260
"He is almost universally regarded as by historians as one of the two greatest Presidents of the 21st Century."
This sentence in the header doesn't make any sense at all, it should be removed. 92.9.190.208 ( talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Explain your reasoning for deleting it besides just saying "It's been removed" That's illogical to do so. There is nothing nonsensical about it. Unless there was no source provided, it should have remained. -- DiamondElusive ( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal Bias has no place in wikipedia. -- DiamondElusive ( talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the economics section and others have claimed the exact opposite covers a well researched and thoughtout rebuttal of the downsides of Bush's economics plans and their impacts by Alan Reynolds, a noteworth economist. However, many of the key factors he has used in his article have been mitigated or removed due to the sub prime mortage crisis and are no longer applicable. An updated rebuttal after the sub-prime mortage crisis is required. I have placed a {{ cn}} flag until we can get a more current one. RTRimmel ( talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bush just achieved the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080422/a_pollbox22.art.htm Rvk41 ( talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a POV tag on the "Economic policy" section. I can not believe that there are no people who believe that President Bush has improved the economy. That section needs to have sourced positive reviews regarding President Bush's effect on the economy before it can be considered to be balanced. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
<undent> How about we let the facts speak for themselves and simply remove the 3rd paragraph entirely. It relies on asserting facts on opinions and presently its going to be rather challenging to find any that are credible and pro-bush (I just searched again and didn't find anything credible). All this section will do is poison the well concerning the article. The facts may pay a poor portrait of the economy, but they are not POV. We can reinsert asserted opinions after Bush has left office. RTRimmel ( talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The section labeled 2004 Presidential Candidacy does not even mention any election controversy even though the link through article contains extensive evidence and analysis of voting fraud, an issue which was broadly covered and quite controversial. What is going on here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Who the hell locked dubya's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.27.55 ( talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
But why does not the Wikipedia article on the 2004 election controversy inform or have expression in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 16:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
None of the following articles is mentioned in the George W. Bush and perhaps should be:
GregManninLB ( talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil ( talk) 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)While other presidents have openly discussed their faith and how it has influenced their politics (notable examples include Ronald Reagan), George W. Bush is thus far the only one to have attempted desecularising the United States government through social and educational programs such as faith-based initiatives, using an inordinate amount of religious terminology in speeches and harangues, and formulating a faith-based foreign policy which divides the world into two absolutes, the side of good (the United States and her allies) and the side of evil (everyone else).
The Early - Mid Life section on this needs some serious clean up. It features awkward and unclear phrasing, wordiness, and redundancy, and incorrect use of the word "ironically" which is infuriating to many people, including myself. I LOVE GEORGE W BUSHH YO ! CALL ME . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.168.174 ( talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the "Education and health" subsection:
In 2006, President George W. Bush became the first sitting President to speak at a community college graduation, when he spoke at Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College. [1]
This is clearly trivial information. The quoted material is as important as what President Bush ate for dinner during each of his Presidential inaugurations (no offense to Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College). -- SMP0328. ( talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor has changed this talk page's usage of {{ WPBS}} to {{ WPB}} without consensus or discussion twice. I have reverted and am now opening this thread to discuss why. Currently the instructions for these templates require a discussion before a change of this magnitude. - MBK 004 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll just leave it alone. You guys decide on what the banner should look like. Dabbydabby ( talk) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't make the edit on my new account, but someone should change Jenna Bush to Jenna Hager (while keeping the link to Jenna Bush, as her article's name hasn't been changed) in the infobox. Malan70 ( talk) 13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the Infobox to reflect the name change. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The photo showing a halo around the head with a subtext stating his religiosity is a bit weird, possibly unencyclopedic. JMK ( talk) 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The "Mission Accomplished" speech was not named such. Linking to "Mission Accomplished" makes a connection between the speech and the actions of the crew in hanging the sign that is only circumstantial. Bush made a speech declaring the end of major combat operations. That is the necessary information the article should convey. If "Mission Accomplished" is to be included, it should be appropriately framed. 'The crew had hung a banner on the ship which read "Mission Accomplished."' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.203.187 ( talk) 12:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it...where in the impeachment article does it care to point out the 2/3ds majority required for it, and how that's what the dems don't have? Seems like it's the biggest hurdle, and the naiveness to this is most major criticism with the so-called "movement". It's party loyalty. Rodrigue ( talk) 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that public opinion is reliable, or really means anything for this kind of thing, considering what it would be after the fact, but seeing as neither a strong majority of public, or likely enough of a majority politicians favour a removal from office, article seems rather fruitless...seems the so-called "movement" is from those who don't realize is futility.
Other presidents have been called for impeachment regardless anyway, is it just the seemingly strong rationale for the article that's exceptional?. Rodrigue ( talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well considering the party-line vote impeachment for Clinton, I'm not sure how note worthy it is that they didn't attempt an impeachment, even given the rationales.
But isn't impeachment simply a vote for removal from office anyway?. Whether or not they get charged/indicted for they're alleged crimes afterwards is irrelevant. Rodrigue ( talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The seperate criminal indictment could easily fail following conviction in the senate, the whole thing may not even go to "trial"...unless you meant what I said. Rodrigue ( talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The list of the cabinet also includes budget director, and drug enforcement director. What is the logic for not including the CIA Directors, and the new Director of National Intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.240.220 ( talk) 08:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to talk about this again but I just cleaned up my browser catche but even if the image is now blocked (I hope), I can still see the blocked image on the article even if it got removed and the editting page doesn't indicate that it's still there. Now things are really weird. @_@ -- Hundred-Man ( talk) 18:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
George Bush never served on active duty in Vietnam. It is clear from both the timeline of this article and a link in the article titled "Critics allege" that he was never even in country. As such the reference to Battles/Service at the top right of this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.208.121 ( talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In the "Military Service" part of the infobox, it says "Battles/Wars Vietnam War." Huh? Bush was never in battle in his life. And he was never in Vietnam. Also, I'm unclear: why does this article include a prominent photo of Bush in military uniform, when the main John Kerry article has no photo of this genuine war hero in uniform? Typical right-wing Wikipedia bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 May 2008
The citation of how many national guard members went to fight in Vietnam gives a highly false impression. Bush was under a zero percent chance of going to fly in Vietnam with an obsolete plane. JohnLease ( talk) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, this looks to possibly be interesting. Let's hold off for a brief moment for the experts to tear into this document before we add anything to the article. The talking points I've heard so far is that the main reason it is interesting was that McClellan was a very loyal bulldog for Bush's policies and having him pull an essential 180 is rather... extreme. Most of the other points have already been covered before at a quick glance but it is highly possible more information will come out. RTRimmel ( talk) 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard today that President Bush owns an oil company in the Middle East and the reason gas prices are so high right now is because he is trying to make as much money as possible before he leaves office...Does anyone know if this is true??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.218.26 ( talk) 05:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Senate Intelligence Comittee says Bush distorted information to go to war. http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=24994710&pg1=1 ~~Brad~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.205 ( talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that the election was a fraud, as reported by Greg Palast/BBC? The only place this isn't considered a "fact" is the USA. 76.102.87.224 ( talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing a few of the passages on his election, I feel that it is worth mentioning that in the 2004 election bush only won by 2.4% against an opponent who was essentially declaring that Bush was an abject failure and his efforts would be to do more or less the exact opposite of Bush. The prior passages made it sound as if Bush won overwhelming victories, and while he won majorities... Kerry got the 2nd most number of votes ever in a presidential election and would have won the 2000 election by around 9 million votes with his tallies. RTRimmel ( talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
209.191.205.48 ( talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I shortened the following sentence:
Original:
Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote and earning more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States"[9]
New
Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote.
While this is a factual statement, it is not notable since the size of the US electorate was also at its highest point. This same statement can be made about nearly every elected president.
Mister Tog ( talk) 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
--
It does not seem very notable to me. Since popular vote has been calculated, more Presidents have gotten "more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States" than not. Assuming this is correct [17].
71.162.121.102 ( talk) 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Bluntly, given that he won by less than 3%% I think that entire sentence needs rewritten as it sounds like he won by a landslide but really won with the lowest margin of any wartime president in the history of the US. That and yes, nearly every president wins by the largest number of votes in history, Bush Sr did, Regan did, Clinton did on his first election so that's as noteworthy as Bush throwing out the first pitch of the baseball season, IE Trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems that some comic genius has added a section about his 'assassination.' I can't remove this myself for some reason, so I bring it to the attention of somebody with editing permission of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.96.251 ( talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Israel and Albania can be expected to support any U.S. President these days, and Venezuela and Iran will oppose any of them. This sentence is not very enlightening. We would do well to explain how Bush has been different from other presidents, e.g., relations with Europe and the Far East. Shii (tock) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think it would be quite appropriate for someone as influential and controversial as the current POTUS to have his own Criticism section, especially when Clinton has sections dedicated to the Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater, and other sexual misconduct allegations on his own front page. Even if it's just a paragraph summary of some of Bush's more controversial scandals and a link to the main article, Bush's involvement in scandals should be made clear. 169.232.78.24 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I wouldn't bring something like this up, because I'm not an ardent supporter of President Bush (I feel he's done many things well and many poorly). But the paragraph on Albania cheering and idolizing him is certainly appropriate and has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. The only WEIGHT matter is balancing the critical views vs. positive views. The paragraph read:
During a June 2007 visit to Albania Bush was greeted enthusiastically as the Albanian people cheered, shook his hands, and kissed his cheeks. Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha commented that Bush "was [the] greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times." The largely Islamic nation has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the country's government is highly supportive of American foreign policy. [1] A huge image of the President now hangs in the middle of the capital city of Tirana flanked by Albanian and American flags. [2]
User:Gamaliel removed the phrases 'as the Albanian people cheered, shook his hands, and kissed his cheeks. Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha commented that Bush "was [the] greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times." '
First, the people's reaction to Bush is 100% relevant, for they are a largely Muslim nation that supports him. This also serves as a stark contrast to what the people of many other Muslim nations are doing to effigies of the president. The prime minister's comments are even more so relevant. Here we have a man disliked by much of the world, yet not by this country, as evident by this quote. Again, the only WP:WEIGHT issue is balancing the positive vs. negative in the section. And frankly I feel one full positive paragraph on a recent event in the 'foreign perceptions' section merits inclusion. Happyme22 ( talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (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 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
The whole section on presidency seems to not have any type of ordering. The section 3.7 (Civ. lib.) comes before 3.9 (Sept. 11) yet refrances the events of 3.9. Personally the section should follow chronological order. Covah79 ( talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Feb 7, 2008
Section Seems to be missing this
George W. Bush appointed the following justices to the Supreme Court:
Malsmith ( talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The sections dealing with "perceptions" are per se suspect. While I do not doubt that the cited polls took place and I accept the results of those polls as correctly cited, it should be noted that polls are easily manipulated. What questions are asked and what information is given along with the question can tilt the result one way or another. Also, if the party that conducted the poll has an agenda the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt.-- SMP0328. ( talk) 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask how George Bush is in the category American Cheerleaders? Hatmatbbat10 ( talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok.... Hatmatbbat10 ( talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just have to say that I cannot believe that even though this is a locked article, a fairly obvious act of vandalism exists at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.239.13 ( talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that he is doing a good job in the role of presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.46.130 ( talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There's seem to be an edit battle going on regarding when President Bush's term ends. If he finishes the current term, then it will be January 20, 2009. Technically, it could be sooner (death, resignation, or removal). Some keep putting in the end of term assuming President Bush will finish this term. Others keep removing the date, because he could leave sooner. I suggest "January 20, 2009 (assuming he finishes term)." This would cover both contingencies. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous! There has been zero speculation outside the usual fevered imaginations of Bush's ideological enemies, that his term will in any way end prematurely. Until this changes, listing his Constitutional final day of office January 20, 2009 is not in any way "controversial" or even subject to legitimate debate. If you wiki editors and other posters wish to indulge in your left wing fantasies it would be best to do so on a private blog and not a public encyclopedia. You are violating the NPOV policy of Wikipedia by nursing your delusions on his encyclopedia entry. I know it is a tall order...but try to be fair. -RKT4MAYOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKT4MAYOR ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- The main Wiki article on Bill Clinton contains extensive info on the (unproven) sexual allegations made by Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. And yet the main Wiki George W. Bush article contains no mention of Margie Schoedinger (who filed a rape lawsuit against Bush and who was found dead of a gunshot wound the following year). True, Schoedinger's allegation was unproven, but then so were Willey's and Broaddrick's allegations. - Why the Wiki double-standard? - More importantly, why is this considered vandalism on a discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeMongo ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign. DeMongo ( talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. http://www.fortbendstar.com/Archives/2003_4q/122403/n_Woman%20who%20filed%20lawsuit%20found%20dead.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.156.186 ( talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That's quite a double standard we have going. So the logic is pretty much if someone did something once, you don't have to prove they did it twice? That makes a whole lot of sense. Stop Me Now! ( talk) 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph as it appears to be a unique case and highly unrepresentative of the subject as a whole, and thus is not notable enough to warrant a paragraph in a tight article like this. Albania is famous for being hated by just about every other country in the world, much like the United States, so I don't find the support surprising.
Herunar (
talk)
17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that mention about Bush being a 2001 Nobel Prize nominee should be removed.
First, the statement appears to be factually incorrect. The source cited in the article to justify this statement, [2], says as much: Despite a rumor that circulated late in 2001, President Bush wasn't amongst the nominees for the 2001 prize...In February 2002, however, reports began circulating that members of the Norwegian Nobel committee had let it slip that George W. Bush was among the persons (along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani) being considered for the 2002 Peace Prize.
So it seems that Bush was nominated for the 2002 prize, rather then for the 2001 one.
Second, the source cited, snopes.com, seems like a rather weak choice of a source for this kind of information. There ought to be some more direct references in mass media.
Third, and most importantly, the mere fact that some-one was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize does not seem to be sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned here. That is certainly the case when we are talking about a U.S. President. If he won the prize or at least if he was considered a serious contender, that would have been a different story. However, the same snopes.com article says:
The Reuters news agency noted, however: "Neither Bush nor Blair is likely to win. Bishop Gunnar Staalsett, a member of the secretive five-member Nobel committee which elects the winner, has spoken out against the U.S.-led and British-backed strikes on Afghanistan." President Bush was reportedly one of 156 candidates considered for the 2002 Peace Prize, which was awarded in October 2002 to former President Jimmy Carter.
I did a bit of google-searching and it looks like President Bush was nominated by a single rightwing Norwegian MP, see [3]. It seems to me that this episode perhaps belongs as a footnote together with various oddities and curiosities related to President Bush's biography, but not in the first sentence of his biographical entry, where it appears now. Regards, Nsk92 ( talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is relevant to acknowledge him being in the Skulls and Bones. The Anti-Vandalism King ( talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does attempting to go to this website result in getting to this article? [9] -- SMP0328. ( talk) 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
George Bush has recognized independence of Kosovo, and we should note this fact in the article. Bosniak ( talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems interesting that George Bush's wiki page has been locked from editing, no doubt of course from various vandalism, when in fact at least one thing so far has been missed.
In the 'Child-hood to Mid-Life' section, someone changed the entry to read as follows: Bush was raised in [vulgar language removed]|Midland]] and Houston, Texas
Maybe the admins might want to change that?!
-- 24.31.174.129 ( talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If some moderator could please fix this, that would be great. (Kinda says something about me being straight, that aint right?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.67.125 ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a recent edit
[1] Despite President Bush's lack of involvement in this affair, he still maintains the claim of Executive Privilege for his aides. [2] As Bush has repeatedly stated he has no involvement in this case, "this calls into question any claim of executive privilege."
Executive Privilege in the United States requires the direct involvement of the president of the United States. As Bush has repeated stated he has no involvement in the Midterm firings, he therefor has no claim of executive privilege and therefor the fact that he still claims is significant. Given that it comes up in every meaningful article (including the sources within the section) but is not mentioned in the section proper is a rather glaring omission. Hopping over to the Executive Privilege section of the wiki, all cases directly involve the president of the United States and the United States v. Nixon sets its precedent as requiring the President's involvement. Hence, this calls into question any claims of said privilege and makes it worthy of entry. RTRimmel ( talk) 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, stop edit warring, and giving undue weight to a matter of little importance. Leahy's opinion about the executive privilege is irrelevant. Of course he thinks it's that limited. He's a) a Democrat, and b) a Congressman. On both counts it's not surprising that he has this opinion, but that doesn't mean it's notable enough to be worth mentioning here, let alone giving it a whole damn paragraph. What is notable is that in the course of his attack on Bush he admitted that there was clear evidence that Bush was not involved in the firings. That is notable, and it's appropriate to quote his exact words in making this admission – and no more.
Dowdifying, or "Quote mining" as you call it, would be if he'd said something like "the president's supporters claim there's clear evidence...but that's not true", and "it seems like there's clear evidence...but appearances are deceptive", and someone quoted just "there's clear evidence...". That would be dishonest. That's what Maureen Dowd did to Bush in the famous incident that gave Dowdifying its name. But that's not what's going on here. Leahy said Bush wasn't involved, and he meant it; naturally his purpose wasn't out support Bush but to attack him, by drawing a conclusion from Bush's non-involvement. But that doesn't make the quote any less genuine, or any less important. It's an admission, and an admission against interest, which is the best kind of admission. It should stay, without the rest of what Leahy said, which isn't relevant.
As for the fact that Bush wouldn't let his advisors testify, that's barely notable at all, and doesn't deserve more than one sentence. The space you've given it is undue weight, and it must be reverted.
-- Zsero ( talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it at all possible to have the list of references in a drop down menu, as in hide them by default but reveal them at the click of a button? Because at my default resolution and text size the references measure eight pages long, just under a quarter of this article is taken up by references alone. JayKeaton ( talk) 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at any other poll, none of them even come close to 19%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=19 I don't see any other 19%. Redsox7897 ( talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Will they ever learn? Will a moderator please delete the vandalism on top of the George W. Bush page? Brokenspirits ( talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This week, Wikisource is collaborating on works by and about George Walker Bush. Please consider helping out; if you dont have time to transcribe documents, we also need help identifying important documents that should be transcribed, so ... hit the talk page! See you there. John Vandenberg ( talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Why can't articles like this be fully protected? Also, why can't vandalism from REGISTERED USERS spark full protection. Footballfan190 ( talk) 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There were reasons other than waterboarding that Bush stated for vetoing the bill. Please amend to note that waterboarding (Section 327) was only a small part of the bill. Full details of the veto can be found here. Also, if this is going to be here, please include "H.R. 2082" (the bill's number). -- 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel we need a paragraph or two on Bush's alteration of the Intelligence Community, namely removing the DCI as the oversight for the CIA and the creation of Homeland Security and if possible projections on what Clinton Obama or McCain might do during their administrative transitions to the White House. Would they have the authority to undermine Bush's architecture, could they revert it, would they? It might be a little tangent but I definitely feel that the article needs something to describe the effect he's had on international and domestic espionage, ect besides extensive use of NSA eavesdropping, ty and sorry for spelling. Sanitycult ( talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not normal for a president to become a lame duck until after the November elections of his or her fourth year in office. It is important to add a section about Bush becoming a lame duck after the mid term elections of his second term. Also it is important to note that the military has refused to cooperate with any possible attack of Iran, in fact it is surprising that one general was not court-martialed after refusing a direct order from the president. -- Gonezales ( talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What part of "an elected official who has lost political power" are you missing? -- Gonezales ( talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but out of politeness you will always find some reporters who decline to call him a lame duck until November 2008. --
Gonezales (
talk)
17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As to Iran - there is still a lot of posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. It is worthwhile noting that Nixon was bereaved of his finger from the trigger, because insiders were afraid that he would start a nuclear war. A similar situation is manifesting in a less brutal manner. I would also like to see a flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house. I don't think that anyone should think that ideas originate from the top, nor are they approved at the top. The most likely decision maker appears to be Cheney, but the role of other advisers is clearly significant. Bush says that he is the decider, but that seems to be just idle rhetoric. -- Gonezales ( talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Now it is my turn to ask you to keep your "of course" opinions to yourself. Feel free to start the section with the "wanting" to attack Iran portion. I'll look for some sources for you to add to the "refusal" portion. None of the above were intended to show mutiny, all were intended to show intent to attack Iran. Below are the sources intended to show mutiny.
-- Gonezales ( talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, I am here to provide truth that I have found in reliable sources, not to find truth here. If I don't find truth here, I am here to fix it. It is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to speculate on the schemes of the bush administration, but well within scope to document plans that have been revealed. I'm not talking about contingency plans, I'm talking about actual plans. In this case I'm not even talking about plans as much as objectives. Is an objective of the administration to invade Canada? No. Is it an objective to attack Iraq? I don't know, and like I said I have no opinion, but there are plenty of references that make it sound like it is. Now the question is how do you put that into an encyclopedia? -- Gonezales ( talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I put John McCain as Bush's successor in the succession box. [11] Surely, with the note that McCain is only the presumptive nominee, this is acceptable? -- Philip Stevens ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
He is not the nominee until he gives his "official" acceptance speech at the RNC later this year. We should wait until then to add him to the succession box. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So we are ignoring the 19% poll, did someone finally find something that said it was a bad poll. Please throw that up there as a source. And the sources provided indicated that Bush's lowest approval was a Newsweek poll of 26%, and sepearatly Reuters has his lowest at 24%. Both are verifyable and lower than the 'lowest' section we currently have up. Unless of course Newsweek and Reuters are both also unreliable? I'll fix it later, but again I'm inclined to leave the 19% up there unless someone can find me something that says that its not a reliable number. So far we've had two people saying that it sounds bad but haven't backed anything up with anything other than their own gut feelings. And then acted on it. I'll drop the ARG poll like a dirty fish if someone can find something that indicates that someone non-partisan and crediable considers it a bad number, the worst I found was that they used occasionally questionable methodology in an article that was describing common polling practices during the Artic Wildlife Refugee drilling debate(drilling vs energy exploation or otherwise modifying the wording to gain approval), but the polling was considered 'good' then so I'm inclined to wonder why the same methodology as used by other organizations is bad now? RTRimmel ( talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
i think a strong case can be made for not allowing poll numbers into the article until they've 'aged' at least one month. this is wikipedia, not wikinews. as it stands the article suffers from recentism. one thing is clear though, it's not appropriate to cherry pick which poll to quote in the article. one reliable poll organization should be chosen, and should remain the standard. gallup? ARG is not nearly as widely quoted as gallup (or the other 'big ones', names of which escape me). either that, or we add a section purely on popularity polls, and quote four or five of them each time new results come out. not a practical or encyclopedic path, that. Anastrophe ( talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've rationalised the collection of polls into one footnote. As it stood, the sentence in the lede was simply false; it said that Gallup had found a high of 90 and a low of 24, and that is just not true. The lowest Gallup found was 29. The bulk of polls have shown lows in the low 30s. The CNN story says the 31 that it just found is the lowest it's ever found; that's not at all notable, because it's right in the mainstream of the polls, as shown at Polling Report and Real Clear Politics. The only two polls that have found significantly less than 30 are Reuters/Zogby at 24, and ARG at 19; those are certainly noteworthy enough to be in the footnote, which is where I've put them. So the footnote now has these five links. -- Zsero ( talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that if you vandalize the page George W. Bush, you can get arrested? Footballfan190 ( talk) 07:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
Why is it that this article which is the most heavily vandalised of all articles on wikipedia does not get full protection? Why is it that we have to have users constantly refreshing this page every single second for vandalism when this could save them a lot of time by having no one edit the page. Having it semi-protected is useless, people just constantly make new users and even if you block their IP address there will NEVER be a stop to the vandalism. Have it fully protected so only admins can edit the page. This will save a lot of time for everyone. Roadrunnerz45 ( talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In the economy section about this president, the very important negative economic details are somehow omitted. How can you describe economic downturns without describing: 1) Tech bubble bursting just PRIOR to bush administration 2) Devastating effect of 9/11 on economy. Leaving these important economic influences out of the article makes it appear as if you attribute all of the economic downturns to the president - only leftist bias in editors could be the reason for leaving out these indisputable economic FACTS which had more bearing on economy during his administration than anything he has done. His policies have been introduced largely to try to offset losses which occured as a result of these incidents beyond his control. 24.197.149.26 ( talk) 05:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In the section on foreign policy, there is a quirky and awkward jump into the following sentence: "Some national leaders alleged abuse by U.S. troops and called for the U.S. to shut down detention centers in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere." I think this quote should continue as follows: Sadly, none of these 'national leaders' ever 'alledged abuse' by the regimes of Saddam, the Iranian fanatics, Kim Jung Il, or Pol Pot for that matter. These 'national leaders' appear to prefer to 'look away' when there are gross human rights violations by true dictators, but they become very disturbed when the US imprisons some known terrorsists. 24.197.149.26 ( talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In the section 'the war on terror' there are several statements that are apparently politically biased conjecture. Simply because something has a 'source' does not make it 'fact'. I urge people to read this section and ask themselves 'is Wikipedia left biased?'. You shouldn't post these types of subjective commentary without posting the alternative (there are 'sources' on both sides). I am not going to spend any more time on this because if these are not blatantly obvious and doesn't get changed, then the editors are biased. I am starting to think 'this page is protected' is an Orwellian doublespeak meaning 'this page is propogandized for only leftist viewpoints to be expressed'. I imagine they will even delete this entry from discussion. Looks like pretty soon only leftists and those who favor terrorists and dictator states will be able to engage in so called 'free speech'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.149.26 ( talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
According to this tool, the GWB article has been edited 40K times now. here's the edit by MagnusA. Congrats ;) -- Winterus ( talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a movie being filmed in the northwest Louisiana area about Bush. Though I loathe him I suggest those that mean no ill will watch for the film for perhaps further edits. The film will be called either "Dubya" or "W". I believe the latter since the former would best befit a comedy (though his presidency is much of one already) Jerky Chid ( talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism." I think the article shows that he has seen "heated criticism" since he was the Republican nominee until today, and though you could make the case it has fluctuated, such as right after 9/11, it has been heated and intense all other times. He wasn't given a reprieve after his re-election. I propose this sentence instead; "Bush has received heated criticism throughout his presidential career." That at least would be accurate. Thoughts and modifications welcome! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Introduction to this article is excessively long. Some of the material in the Introduction should either be deleted or moved into the main body of the article. An Introduction is supposed to be short synopses of its article. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I disagree. What is a unscientific a poll is a poll and not need to be statistic to be meaningful. If the world belives in a flat earth does that mean it is true? Bush is the worst president because he behaves so relevent to other presidents as stated by majority of historians; this is logical and deductive reasoning. Hence it makes it sientific!
Another report has come out stating that Bush knew more than he let on, and is basically standing behind a shaky legal definition of torture so he can say he haven't been or hasn't authorized. One can argue about the specifics, but in any case we should have something listed in the main article concerning this. Before someone goes through and deletes the additions because they disagree witht hem, and you know who you are, please explain why it should be removed and what should be mentioned in its place. Google Torture president and you get millions of hits, many of them are about Bush. This needs to be mentioned, though I'm unsure as to of what degree, thoughts? RTRimmel ( talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Bill Clinton was never impeached. Please rephrase to "calls for impeachment" or something. the current entry is incorrect. 139.85.238.86 ( talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC) AM
I just want to mention that the talk page archive automation that has just been put in place is an excellent idea. Jpers36 ( talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe this detail "despite scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test" shows a bit of bias against bush.. 24.16.192.56 ( talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Either after mentioning of his current 19% approval rating or in the information about impeachment movement, it may be worth mentioning that Bush is not expected to be impeached as the Democratic-controlled Congress can't muster enough courage or even half the courage that the Republican-controlled Congress had when they impeached a President with an approval rating above 50%. Wotring3 ( talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the third paragraph states: "As president, Bush signed into law a US$1.35 trillion tax cut program in 2001,[3]" It should be followed with "This tax cut was not accompanied by reduced spending and resulted in the National Debt increasing for only the second time in 50 Years (Reagan's Administration being the other time).[226]
226. National Debt History by President. White House Data on Gross National Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Factsonly1 ( talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Under: "Additionally, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, though the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investigation of Bush concluded that he did not have enough insider information before his stock sale to warrant a case.[33]" .. should we add that the head of the SEC, at the time of the investigation, was formerly GWH's personal counsel? Do you think that might have influenced the decision that there was "not enough information"? James D. Rockefeller ( talk) 12:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Pure speculation?? I think not. Bruce Hiler, the associate director of the SEC's enforcement division, who wrote the letter to Bush's attorney saying the investigation was being terminated, now represents former Enron president Jeff Skilling in matters before the government. Richard Breeden, the SEC chairman at the time, was deputy counsel to Bush's father when he was Vice President and was appointed SEC chairman when H.W. Bush became President. James Doty, the SEC's general counsel at the time, helped W. Bush negotiate the contract to buy the Texas Rangers.
Martha Stewart did time for less, and she wasn't even an "insider." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.186.36 ( talk) 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
George W. Bush is probably the worst president in history, I have no clue why this 'article' praises him like he's god. Please tone it down a notch. Dwilso 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone take away the "Jerks"s over his picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaman4ever ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"2000 Presidential candidacy Main article: United States presidential election, 2000 Bowing out from the Texas governorship, Bush sought his own bid for President of the United States in 2000."
Bush did not "bow out" from the Texas governorship until December 21, 2000, twelve days after the Supreme Court ruling. He ran for president while he was the governor and only resigned a month before taking the oath of office. The "bowing out" sounds like he resigned in order to run for president, which he certainly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.15.100 ( talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I found an interesting link << http://duggmirror.com/politics/What_8_Years_of_Bush_and_Cheney_Have_Done_to_the_U_S_Economy/>> concerning the Economy under Bush. Is it link worthy in the article proper? RTRimmel ( talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the Governor of Texas subsection of the Elected positions section:
“ | The Bush campaign was criticized for allegedly using controversial methods to disparage Richards. | ” |
This sentence was unsourced and vague. What were the "controversial methods" that "allegedly" (i.e. unproven) occurred? Who made this criticism? If sourced answers, that aren't vague, can be given to these questions then they can be put in the article, but unsupported vague claims do not. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DA103BF935A35750C0A966958260
"He is almost universally regarded as by historians as one of the two greatest Presidents of the 21st Century."
This sentence in the header doesn't make any sense at all, it should be removed. 92.9.190.208 ( talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Explain your reasoning for deleting it besides just saying "It's been removed" That's illogical to do so. There is nothing nonsensical about it. Unless there was no source provided, it should have remained. -- DiamondElusive ( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal Bias has no place in wikipedia. -- DiamondElusive ( talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the economics section and others have claimed the exact opposite covers a well researched and thoughtout rebuttal of the downsides of Bush's economics plans and their impacts by Alan Reynolds, a noteworth economist. However, many of the key factors he has used in his article have been mitigated or removed due to the sub prime mortage crisis and are no longer applicable. An updated rebuttal after the sub-prime mortage crisis is required. I have placed a {{ cn}} flag until we can get a more current one. RTRimmel ( talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bush just achieved the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080422/a_pollbox22.art.htm Rvk41 ( talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a POV tag on the "Economic policy" section. I can not believe that there are no people who believe that President Bush has improved the economy. That section needs to have sourced positive reviews regarding President Bush's effect on the economy before it can be considered to be balanced. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
<undent> How about we let the facts speak for themselves and simply remove the 3rd paragraph entirely. It relies on asserting facts on opinions and presently its going to be rather challenging to find any that are credible and pro-bush (I just searched again and didn't find anything credible). All this section will do is poison the well concerning the article. The facts may pay a poor portrait of the economy, but they are not POV. We can reinsert asserted opinions after Bush has left office. RTRimmel ( talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The section labeled 2004 Presidential Candidacy does not even mention any election controversy even though the link through article contains extensive evidence and analysis of voting fraud, an issue which was broadly covered and quite controversial. What is going on here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Who the hell locked dubya's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.27.55 ( talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
But why does not the Wikipedia article on the 2004 election controversy inform or have expression in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 16:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
None of the following articles is mentioned in the George W. Bush and perhaps should be:
GregManninLB ( talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil ( talk) 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)While other presidents have openly discussed their faith and how it has influenced their politics (notable examples include Ronald Reagan), George W. Bush is thus far the only one to have attempted desecularising the United States government through social and educational programs such as faith-based initiatives, using an inordinate amount of religious terminology in speeches and harangues, and formulating a faith-based foreign policy which divides the world into two absolutes, the side of good (the United States and her allies) and the side of evil (everyone else).
The Early - Mid Life section on this needs some serious clean up. It features awkward and unclear phrasing, wordiness, and redundancy, and incorrect use of the word "ironically" which is infuriating to many people, including myself. I LOVE GEORGE W BUSHH YO ! CALL ME . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.168.174 ( talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the "Education and health" subsection:
In 2006, President George W. Bush became the first sitting President to speak at a community college graduation, when he spoke at Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College. [1]
This is clearly trivial information. The quoted material is as important as what President Bush ate for dinner during each of his Presidential inaugurations (no offense to Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College). -- SMP0328. ( talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor has changed this talk page's usage of {{ WPBS}} to {{ WPB}} without consensus or discussion twice. I have reverted and am now opening this thread to discuss why. Currently the instructions for these templates require a discussion before a change of this magnitude. - MBK 004 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll just leave it alone. You guys decide on what the banner should look like. Dabbydabby ( talk) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't make the edit on my new account, but someone should change Jenna Bush to Jenna Hager (while keeping the link to Jenna Bush, as her article's name hasn't been changed) in the infobox. Malan70 ( talk) 13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the Infobox to reflect the name change. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The photo showing a halo around the head with a subtext stating his religiosity is a bit weird, possibly unencyclopedic. JMK ( talk) 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The "Mission Accomplished" speech was not named such. Linking to "Mission Accomplished" makes a connection between the speech and the actions of the crew in hanging the sign that is only circumstantial. Bush made a speech declaring the end of major combat operations. That is the necessary information the article should convey. If "Mission Accomplished" is to be included, it should be appropriately framed. 'The crew had hung a banner on the ship which read "Mission Accomplished."' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.203.187 ( talk) 12:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it...where in the impeachment article does it care to point out the 2/3ds majority required for it, and how that's what the dems don't have? Seems like it's the biggest hurdle, and the naiveness to this is most major criticism with the so-called "movement". It's party loyalty. Rodrigue ( talk) 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that public opinion is reliable, or really means anything for this kind of thing, considering what it would be after the fact, but seeing as neither a strong majority of public, or likely enough of a majority politicians favour a removal from office, article seems rather fruitless...seems the so-called "movement" is from those who don't realize is futility.
Other presidents have been called for impeachment regardless anyway, is it just the seemingly strong rationale for the article that's exceptional?. Rodrigue ( talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well considering the party-line vote impeachment for Clinton, I'm not sure how note worthy it is that they didn't attempt an impeachment, even given the rationales.
But isn't impeachment simply a vote for removal from office anyway?. Whether or not they get charged/indicted for they're alleged crimes afterwards is irrelevant. Rodrigue ( talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The seperate criminal indictment could easily fail following conviction in the senate, the whole thing may not even go to "trial"...unless you meant what I said. Rodrigue ( talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The list of the cabinet also includes budget director, and drug enforcement director. What is the logic for not including the CIA Directors, and the new Director of National Intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.240.220 ( talk) 08:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to talk about this again but I just cleaned up my browser catche but even if the image is now blocked (I hope), I can still see the blocked image on the article even if it got removed and the editting page doesn't indicate that it's still there. Now things are really weird. @_@ -- Hundred-Man ( talk) 18:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
George Bush never served on active duty in Vietnam. It is clear from both the timeline of this article and a link in the article titled "Critics allege" that he was never even in country. As such the reference to Battles/Service at the top right of this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.208.121 ( talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In the "Military Service" part of the infobox, it says "Battles/Wars Vietnam War." Huh? Bush was never in battle in his life. And he was never in Vietnam. Also, I'm unclear: why does this article include a prominent photo of Bush in military uniform, when the main John Kerry article has no photo of this genuine war hero in uniform? Typical right-wing Wikipedia bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 May 2008
The citation of how many national guard members went to fight in Vietnam gives a highly false impression. Bush was under a zero percent chance of going to fly in Vietnam with an obsolete plane. JohnLease ( talk) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, this looks to possibly be interesting. Let's hold off for a brief moment for the experts to tear into this document before we add anything to the article. The talking points I've heard so far is that the main reason it is interesting was that McClellan was a very loyal bulldog for Bush's policies and having him pull an essential 180 is rather... extreme. Most of the other points have already been covered before at a quick glance but it is highly possible more information will come out. RTRimmel ( talk) 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard today that President Bush owns an oil company in the Middle East and the reason gas prices are so high right now is because he is trying to make as much money as possible before he leaves office...Does anyone know if this is true??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.218.26 ( talk) 05:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Senate Intelligence Comittee says Bush distorted information to go to war. http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=24994710&pg1=1 ~~Brad~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.205 ( talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that the election was a fraud, as reported by Greg Palast/BBC? The only place this isn't considered a "fact" is the USA. 76.102.87.224 ( talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing a few of the passages on his election, I feel that it is worth mentioning that in the 2004 election bush only won by 2.4% against an opponent who was essentially declaring that Bush was an abject failure and his efforts would be to do more or less the exact opposite of Bush. The prior passages made it sound as if Bush won overwhelming victories, and while he won majorities... Kerry got the 2nd most number of votes ever in a presidential election and would have won the 2000 election by around 9 million votes with his tallies. RTRimmel ( talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
209.191.205.48 ( talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I shortened the following sentence:
Original:
Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote and earning more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States"[9]
New
Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote.
While this is a factual statement, it is not notable since the size of the US electorate was also at its highest point. This same statement can be made about nearly every elected president.
Mister Tog ( talk) 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
--
It does not seem very notable to me. Since popular vote has been calculated, more Presidents have gotten "more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States" than not. Assuming this is correct [17].
71.162.121.102 ( talk) 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Bluntly, given that he won by less than 3%% I think that entire sentence needs rewritten as it sounds like he won by a landslide but really won with the lowest margin of any wartime president in the history of the US. That and yes, nearly every president wins by the largest number of votes in history, Bush Sr did, Regan did, Clinton did on his first election so that's as noteworthy as Bush throwing out the first pitch of the baseball season, IE Trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems that some comic genius has added a section about his 'assassination.' I can't remove this myself for some reason, so I bring it to the attention of somebody with editing permission of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.96.251 ( talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Israel and Albania can be expected to support any U.S. President these days, and Venezuela and Iran will oppose any of them. This sentence is not very enlightening. We would do well to explain how Bush has been different from other presidents, e.g., relations with Europe and the Far East. Shii (tock) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think it would be quite appropriate for someone as influential and controversial as the current POTUS to have his own Criticism section, especially when Clinton has sections dedicated to the Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater, and other sexual misconduct allegations on his own front page. Even if it's just a paragraph summary of some of Bush's more controversial scandals and a link to the main article, Bush's involvement in scandals should be made clear. 169.232.78.24 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I wouldn't bring something like this up, because I'm not an ardent supporter of President Bush (I feel he's done many things well and many poorly). But the paragraph on Albania cheering and idolizing him is certainly appropriate and has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. The only WEIGHT matter is balancing the critical views vs. positive views. The paragraph read:
During a June 2007 visit to Albania Bush was greeted enthusiastically as the Albanian people cheered, shook his hands, and kissed his cheeks. Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha commented that Bush "was [the] greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times." The largely Islamic nation has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the country's government is highly supportive of American foreign policy. [1] A huge image of the President now hangs in the middle of the capital city of Tirana flanked by Albanian and American flags. [2]
User:Gamaliel removed the phrases 'as the Albanian people cheered, shook his hands, and kissed his cheeks. Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha commented that Bush "was [the] greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times." '
First, the people's reaction to Bush is 100% relevant, for they are a largely Muslim nation that supports him. This also serves as a stark contrast to what the people of many other Muslim nations are doing to effigies of the president. The prime minister's comments are even more so relevant. Here we have a man disliked by much of the world, yet not by this country, as evident by this quote. Again, the only WP:WEIGHT issue is balancing the positive vs. negative in the section. And frankly I feel one full positive paragraph on a recent event in the 'foreign perceptions' section merits inclusion. Happyme22 ( talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)