![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 |
I think it is worth mentioning that Bush was in the running for the Nobel Prize in 2002? I'm not sure what the wiki policy for that is.
Also the statements claiming that the 2000 was a "smear campaign" seem very biased and at least do not belong on the main page of the man. Maybe on the articles for his election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.40.77 ( talk) 11:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is riddled with grammar errors. It is not right to keep it locked without fixing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.92.194 ( talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
On principle, is it all right to continue to call former statesmen having served the maximum term senators or even politicians or is it instantly discarded now that he cannot serve as president again? I am just asking because I am trying to find a way to best introduce the article using the current status as opposed to "former leader". Evlekis ( talk) 03:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Somebody needs to add his 2009 Maritime Sanctuaries, which were roughly twice as large as the 2006 dedications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellhurst ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be too biased to conclude that section with George Bush's presidnency still being percieved in the eyes of many in America and abroad as the biggest failure in American history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.233.75 ( talk) 05:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that there was no successful terrorist attacks on America after the 9/11 attacks for the balance of George Bush's presidency should be included in the "War on Terror" section of this biography. This is a pertinent fact to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedupside ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is very critical of Bush. It sounds more like CNN than a biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.134.48 ( talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
......I believe this is a fairly positive view of George W Bush as one of his distinguishing historical characteristics is he is the first person ever to be elected president of the United States after having been convicted of DUI, a misdemeanor when he was found guilty but during his presidency considered a felony everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeinlondon ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Propaganda piece.
This is panegyric of Bush (who would have thought it possible!). The whole article needs to be replaced with another. It should address the "controversies" associated with the Bush administration: the social effects of his policies on the economy, health care, education, taxation and social security "reform", the lead up to the Iraq war, his record as Governor of Texas, in which capacity he presided over more tham 150 executions, and many more. Why not ask David North to write it? Arthurjermyn ( talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
He is and was commonly referred to as "Dubya" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.123.231 ( talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
I believe that the statement "In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession." is incorrect. The definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth [1]. This did not happen until Q3/Q4 of 2008. Besides being factually incorrect, the statement is illogical as well. By definition, the longest a "recession" can be is 5 quarters. 6 quarters of negative GDP growth is no longer a recession, it is a depression. This definition actually is in conflict with Wikipedia's definition which is eight quarters [2], but most college economics courses teach six. (I will address the editing of that page at another time.) In the years 1973/74 the US had 5 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Q3 and Q4 for 2008 where negative growth GDP quarters, as where Q1 and Q2 of 2009. Q3 of 2009 showed a positive GDP growth rate which means we had 4 quarters of negative growth in '08/'09 as opposed to 5 in '73/'74. In 1980-83 the US saw 6 consecutive quarters of negative GDP which constituted a depression.
74.115.64.254 ( talk) 19:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Dubya 12/18/2009
References
Today I reverted an edit which removed text from this page using the logic that it was a personal attack. While I agree that the deleted text was a clear personal attack I do not agree with its removal as it sets a dangerous precedent for other editors to begin editing and removing talk page text. I feel it is better to leave it and just move on. If that kind of posting persists than we can take steps to report this poor conduct which violates Wiki policy WP:NPA by contacting an Admin. Generally Wiki discourages editing other editors comments. See WP:TALK and WP:TALKO. It also says that the removal of personal attacks, while permitted, is "controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable". I prefer to leave the text and have a record of an editors misbehavior so we can pursue disciplinary action against the editor if the attacks continue. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think that it is highly rude that "Miserable Failure" Redirects to Bush. Firstly, that he is a failure is an opinion, not a fact (An Opinion I don't agree with that). Secondly, when typing that, I was expecting to get to the Google bomb page (Read it to get what I mean). In short, the Miserable failure should re-direct there instead. 24.29.50.195 ( talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Shouldn't the picture at the top be his official Presidential Portrait, as that is probably the last official portrait he will have?
"In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession" is poorly sourced. The actual quote, which was in itself an opinion piece from 1 economist, states: "The current economic downturn is shaping to be one of the worst in terms of duration, job less and contraction in economic activity in the post-war period," Kwan said. One of the worst is not THE worst. The assertion should either be proven or redacted. Sdiver68 ( talk) 18:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If the Article is Going To Spend So Much Time Talking About Presidential Approval Ratings, It Should Also Reference Harry Truman, who left office with record-low approval ratings, but who years later regained popularity and appreciation for his role as President.
Also low approval ratings for an American President overseas is less significant than the article makes it out to be. Many American Presidents had very low approval ratings in other countries, who by the way don't rank Americans in general very high either.
69.171.160.239 ( talk) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is there the mention of this Under Bill Clinton and not George W Bush?
"In the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Clinton teamed with George W. Bush to form the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund." NYC2LA ( talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It's also in the paragraph under Clinton's Post-Presidency. Why not treat it the same under George W Bush? NYC2LA ( talk) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an appearance of bias in that it is mentioned under Clinton at the top of the article (as well as further on) but is only mentioned at the end of the article on Bush. Both articles should be consistent. NYC2LA ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There should be a mention of the short-lived comedy That's My Bush, in which George W. Bush was a main character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.17.84 ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
by Pesf user, some minutes ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joxemai ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know why the word "Defraud" directs the wikipedia search engine to this particular page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.138.7 ( talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What if we changed the side box at the top to link to the oil company he worked with as well as his owned baseball team under the occupation section instead of just to the petroleum and baseball articles? 150.176.164.16 ( talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys! Read the first few lines of the introduction paragraph and it say that after W:s reelection he experienced increasing criticism "from conservatives". I don't doubt that that's correct in a narrow sense, and "notable" as well. But it intuitively it seems to put a bit of undue weight (in the general sense) on the reaction of conservatives? Over his second term I'm pretty sure he lost a lot of poll support from self-described "moderates" as well? RandySpears ( talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent removed the descriptor of Albania as a largely Muslim nation. I checked the source that the section links to and the descriptor is there:
Albania Key Facts-Predominantly Muslim nation of 3.2m in western Balkans
Also, I searched through the archives to find the consensus( 1, 2) about this section of the Bush article. I do note there is some controversy on the exact religious percentages of the Nation, since they were a Stalinist regime for many years and religion was outlawed. Although the CIA World Factbook and the United States Department of State both list the percentage as 70%, a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center put the figure at nearly 80%. So the source describing the nation as a 'predominantly Muslim nation' is a sufficient descriptor, no matter which source you use. It also adds to the section describing the jubilant reaction of the country at the visit. DD2K ( talk) 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The mention of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the article should be replaced with "interrogation techniques". "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a neologism coined by the Bush administration and more neutral terms should be favored. 74.107.142.232 ( talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the portrait of George W. Bush appearing to the right just below the "Presidency" header is not the official White House portrait of the President. It was commissioned by the Union League Club of Philadelphia and hangs in the Club, not in the White House. See link http://blog.al.com/mhuebner/2008/12/birmingham_artist_mark_carder.html for verification. Robander ( talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead photo ought to be the earlier presidential photo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GeorgeWBush.jpg) as the photos of other recent presidents are from near the beginning of their administrations. The current photo, indicative of Bush's latter looks, looks especially weird when seen in reference to the 2000 election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.34.34 ( talk) 07:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! A lot of people refer to G. W. Bush as "Dubya". Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.31.185.252 ( talk) 09:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that it was a bit spiteful, but the google bombing of his name to miserable failure should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojokabobo ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 March 2010
I am a strong believer in the concept of “follow the money” Is there a way we can add the top contributors to the campaigns? Thank you. -- OxAO ( talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that the economic climate inherited by this presidential term includes the weakened economy caused by the "dotcom bust" of March 2000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#The_bubble_bursts). Other economic events that played a large role in the beginning of this administration's policy includes the Enron Scandel in Oct 2001( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal) which also brought down one of the Big Five accounting firms, Arthur Anderson ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States), as well as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack of the Twin Towers in New York city. These events caused great economic challenges for the early stages of the George W. Bush presidential administration. Ltam1162 ( talk) 01:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
9-11 was the big one. Enron did not cause much change in the U.S. economy. Maybe Arthur Anderson but not the US. The Chicken costs $1 ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The website for the George W. Bush Presidential Center (GWB's personal website) http://www.georgewbushlibrary.com, should be listed in addition to the White House website on GWB's page. After 1/20/09, it should just list the Presidential Center's site.
That is not his personal website. That is the website for the center. Slight difference. The same is that the White House is not Obama's personal website. It is his official website. The Chicken costs $1 ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I would note that while the split of the popular vote is quoted for the 2004 election where Bush defeated Kerry, "...garnering 50.7% of the popular vote to his opponent's 48.3%," the same statistic for the 2000 election is noticeably absent. The specific use of a detailed percentage for 2004 suggests the author attaches great significance to who receives the majority of the popular vote, and yet displays an out-of-place bias in an otherwise simple article by omitting the data where Bush lost the popular vote. To correct the article and make the two passages parallel, the text should read in words or effect as follows: "In 2004 George W. Bush defeated his opponent Al Gore for the Presidency by receiving a majority of the votes cast in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote between them with 50.3% cast for Al Gore and 49.7% cast for President Bush." In the alternative, please delete the second reference with respect to the Bush v. Kerry election.-- Scottie1492 ( talk) 04:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
An April 2010 poll by Democratic leaning Public Policy Polling found that the number of Americans who would rather have Bush as the current President over Obama was in a statistical tie with the number opposed, 46% to 48% respectively.[351]
Any objections to including this? Another editor tweaked the wording just a bit after I first wrote the sentence (so that the poll group is know called "Democratic leaning"), and I have no objections to that change. Grandma Got Divorced ( talk) 04:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Poll has bad sample.
Why these numbers are significant: We have hard numbers Barack won the presidency 53% to 46%, the sample group here is off by over 5% points as a base. The liberal vs moderate vs conservative numbers are also off against pretty much every other polling group I've seen. A detailed examination of the numbers reveal some rather deep flaws that really make me concerned of giving this poll more than a single sentence. My opinion, based on a solid read of the thing, is that they have a bad sample group which is not uncommon in polling and we would need multiple polls preferably from multiple sources to back this one up. All of the sources Granny provided were from editorial columns and none provided any real significance to the poll. If you must add it back in, you get one sentence with a good WP:RS, none of your prior sources qualified, but that bloated paragraph was WP:UNDUE in the extreme. Five or ten sources that say there is a poll does not mean that the poll is significant. RTRimmel ( talk) 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If the poll is called a Democratic leaning poll, the phrasing is potentially biased. There are Republican polls asking things like "Do you agree with Obama's destructive economic policies?". Democratic polls could ask things like "Do you agree with Bush's flushing the Constitution down the toilet?" Those kind of polls are designed to make people donate money because they become angry when reading the question. The Chicken costs $1 ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I literally just made my account so bear with me.
Figured I'd start with something small: The second paragraph in the 'Marriage and Family' section concerning his drug & alcohol use should be moved to 'Childhood to Mid-life' The paragraph starts: "Prior to his marriage" and it just seems out of place. -- Mdw1129 ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I just created Decision Points GWB's memoir, any help there would be great! Weaponbb7 ( talk) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't edit, but ( http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769139/ns/today-today_books/) says that it comes out on November 9. Also, it is not going to be a traditional memoir. Once I can edit, I'll help out
Articles are already being written that suggest Bush's approval might increase after his book is released. [ [1]] for example. This is/will be important but remembering the 10 year test, conjecture on the book is probably not going to be the most productive use of anyone's time. The book is being released on November 9th, 2010 (currently and subject to change). I, for one, am highly curious as to how Bush justified his actions to himself. RTRimmel ( talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Bush's approval is worthless information now that he is retired. Why not report LBJ's approval ratings now? Or William McKinley's approval rating last month? The Sandwich costs $3 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Added the fact that he is now on Facebook, source is in the article. -- Wintonian ( talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Where is the "Pending changes" that BBC is saying this article has? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.216.170 ( talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) BBC article says 11PM GMT which would be 5PM CT or 6PMET USA I assume this is when it happens Thejohansenfamily ( talk) 13:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here."
Pending changes is being added to articles slowly, because there are concerns it will either slow down or crash the site. To see which articles will have pending changes added soon, see Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Queue. There is currently a discussion about if this article should have pending changes turned on now.-- Banana ( talk) 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The word "perceived" is being added to the phrase "His (perceived) intellectual capacity is being satirized ...". This is, seen from one side, redundant, since intellectual capacity is always a perceived feature but assuming a divergence between "perceived intellectual capacity" and "(actual) intellectual capacity", (semantically) it is his (actual) intellectual capacity the one that is being satirized (irregardless of it being high, low, average...). Einstein intellectual capacity has also been satirized, sometimes as high, sometimes as being low. Satirized=(aprox)ridicule. You don't say, for example, instead of "The play ridicules you", "The play ridicules the image we have of you", for a play making fun of you. Abisharan ( talk) 01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen alot of changes regarding this article's protection status. With all of those changes, I've been left confused as to what is this article's current protection status. So tell me: What is the current protection status of this article? SMP0328. ( talk) 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
In 2004 George Bush won a Simple majority not an Absolute majority. No president ever won an absolute majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.63.151 ( talk) 02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Public image..." it was changed "Bush's intellectual capacity..." to "Bush's intelligence...". Intelligence could be intelligence services and notice that since in that paragraph there are no examples of the satires it is not clear which is the case. Therefore "intelligence" alone is not a good choice. I linked it to the meaning of intelligence being referred to. I don't mind this option but what was the problem with intellectual capacity? Why was it changed to a term that requires a link or more explanation in order for not being ambiguous? Abisharan ( talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have applied WP:PCP on this article because this article exists in the pool, and there was no other article that exists in the queue. Please leave comments here if there is any objection to this WP:PCP. 山本一郎 ( 会話) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"In a close and controversial election, Bush was elected President in 2000 as the Republican candidate, defeating then-Vice President Al Gore in the Electoral College.[5]"
It might be worth mentioning that he did not beat Gore in the popular vote (absolute count). 195.241.69.171 ( talk) 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
In regard to James Lame comment John quicny Adams was the first President elected while losing the popular vote, the second was Rutherford Hayes Unicorn76 ( talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
George W. Bush was not elected President in 2000, contrary to this article's assertions; nobody was elected President. The Supreme Court of the United States declared George W. Bush President, and called off the count of the vote. Commentary on either the popular or the electoral vote is moot. Nobody was elected because the counting was called off. The courts decided the Presidency in this election. This is a matter of public record. Maidix ( talk) 09:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "and in his senior year was the head cheerleader" seems to be a direct insult, as its tone is intentionally misleading. The fact that George Bush once led a skit in highschool to mock other school seems an insignificant fact only included in this article for the purpose of mockery. Besides, it's not even a true statement, as whatever Bush was doing certainly had nothing to do with the cheerleading organization in his school. If we must include it, at least explain it more so that readers don't get the wrong idea. Where the are wikipedia's "impartiality standards" now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.135.164 ( talk) 09:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The section referring to the firing of federal prosecutors needs updated.
Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
The investigation looked into whether the Bush administration improperly dismissed nine U.S. attorneys as a way to influence investigations. The scandal contributed to mounting criticism that the administration had politicized the Justice Department, a charge that contributed to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
In 2008, the Justice Department assigned Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with a history of rooting out government wrongdoing, to investigate the firings.
In particular, she looked into whether the firing of New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias and whether then-Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., or others should be prosecuted for his dismissal.
"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."
Prosecutors also said there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with lying to Congress or investigators.
Iglesias was fired after the head of the state's Republican Party e-mailed the White House to complain that the U.S. attorney in New Mexico was soft on voter fraud. The GOP official asked that Iglesias be replaced so that the state could "make some real progress in cleaning up a state notorious for crooked elections."
Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony to House Judiciary Committee investigators that presidential political adviser Karl Rove was "very agitated" over Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."
Rove has said he played no role in deciding which U.S. attorneys were retained and which were replaced, that politics played no role in the Bush administration's removal of U.S. attorneys and that he never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution.
Domenici made three phone calls to the attorney general in 2005 and 2006 and one to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in October 2006 complaining about the performance of Iglesias.
TexasRangersFan (
talk)
20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, George Walker Bush was assigned to Georgia. There is no proof or documentation that he ever reported for duty there. The squadron commander is on record as having no recollection of Bush reporting for duty either.
This sentence should be annotated as "Requires Substantiation" or better yet, removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.238.64 ( talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the list of bush's ancestors and found that only a few are germans. More of them are actaully scottish or even irish. Can someone correct the "primarily of german descent" sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.102.38 ( talk) 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker, have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance.[39] In June 2005, the United States Department of Defense released all the records of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, which remain in its official archives.[40]
The above is quoted from the entry. The documents that are mentioned as being in the "official archives" do not mention if those documents refute or confirm the "critics". This would be good information to have included in the last sentence; ".... confirming the criticism." or .... refuting the criticism."
24.115.255.39 ( talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the limited ancestry chart in the article, but I propose that it be hidden by default. It is not really very important to know President Bush's great-great-great-grandfather, and the colors and large size detract from the rest of the article as a whole. Amit ► 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Despite possible vandalism open up the article. -- 93.82.6.206 ( talk) 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
[3] Despite beeing proteced there is vandalism on Barack Obama page. So it makes no difference, protected or not. -- 93.82.6.206 ( talk) 08:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to put a point on editorials from left leaning publications calling Bush the worst President ever? Unicorn76 ( talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. Is is appropriate to include: 'Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker, have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance' especially given the arguments preventing any mention on Al Gore's page regarding the Oregon sex scandel. If that is not mentioned because it is not 'proven', then this comment regarding Bush should also not be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.144.142.243 ( talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The war in Iraq has been accused of being a war of aggression. As the President, Bush is simultaneously accused of being a war criminal. Should there not be a mention of these accusations on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.174.156 ( talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of a country against its tyrant? seems pretty unencyclopedic and blatant POV to me. There is no such thing as a just war of aggression, according to international law and the UN charter, and there is no dispute that there was no legal or moral basis for the war in Iraq. There should certainly be mentions of the amount of people that died directly due to Bush involvement, and his illegal war, as well as possible war crime tribunals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.225.100 ( talk) 05:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Housing market correction is a use of weasel words. should be housing market crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacisd34 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
An image of President Bush with Pope John Paul II appears twice in the article: under Foreign policy and Foreign perceptions. Is this duplication correct or does it need to be fixed? SMP0328. ( talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Also just noticed that. Needs to be fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.158.127 ( talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Memoir by GW Bush43 is out Nov 9, 2010 titled "[Decision Points]" which should be added to the End of page references Here's amazon.com ref for that new memoir by Bush43 ... http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288999056&sr=1-1 huangde hoondai sr 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Post-presidency section should be updated to show that Decision Points has been published. 69.99.140.114 ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I was reading through an mX newspaper from March 2, 2010, and I discovered that in one caption, entitled "It's True!", it states:
Former president George W. Bush and Senator John Kerr [sic] are related (to) Hugh Hefner. The Playboy founder is ninth cousin to both men.
Further research points to an article written by Joel Roberts for CBS News, Bush, Kerry & Hefner: Odd Cousins.
Although a truly unusual piece of information, is this worth adding to Wikipedia? Eug.galeotti ( talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there been much activity on this page within the last months, I would like to remind everyone to stay neural about some very controversial decisions this president made which are still in effect in the world we live in today. I do see that some "failing" during his leadership have been toned down. Wikipedia is not the place for history revisionism, all negative and positive things some be brought to the table so the reader can decide for them-selfs about there opinion on his presidency. Thanatos465 ( talk) 03:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the info about the attempt to arrest Bush in Switzerland to a "Charges of human rights violations" subsection of the "Post-presidency" section. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, indeed captivating and lively as a Pinochet vs. Bush, quality versus quantity debate might be-- I hope the above editors will forgive a gentle reminder, taken from the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are editing an encyclopedia, not moderating an O'Reiily or Chris Mathews show. Which I grant would be more fun. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked at Bush's family tree and he has more Irish ancestors than German ancestors. Can someone change the "primarily of german descent" part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.136.167 ( talk) 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Descended from early American colonists, Bush also has distant English, French, German, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh ancestry.
On 25 February 2011, I added the following in the 2000 Primary section. In my opinion, the deletions first by The Magnificent Clean-keeper and then by Jojhutton were unwarranted: George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/
1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html
Italus ( talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I just recently removed the addition of some "assassination attempts" to the article. It was my understanding that at least the outside the White House. Attempt would not be included because Bush was not the target. The other addition I'm not sure about, but was not cited and I've never heard of that happening. Otherwise, if anyone wants to open up a new discussion, this would be the section to do so. Jojhutton ( talk) 13:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the final statement in this section indicates that he fulfilled his six years, and makes no mention of the controversy surrounding it (although this is linked at the start of the subsection to the controversey page).
This does not match what we have in the controversy page, in which the sources indicate there is doubt, if not direct statement, that he did not finish those six years. Conversely, the reference given in the main article to support that is a transcript from a Fox News panel discussion, which is not able to be checked (no direct link). This is not the sort of citation that holds up well, even if it wasn't contrary to our other page.
I'm not an adovcate for conspiracy theory and I want to keep this as NPOV as possible. My recommendation, therefore, is either to:
A) remove the "6 year" portion of the statement, leaving "He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974", allowing the issue to be dealt with on the controversy page; or
B) recognize there is a controversy with a statement like "There is disagreement as to whether Bush fulfilled his full 6-year committment". This is a statement of fact, rather than opinion...it simply says there is disagreement, not that there is evidence, etc, which would be a subjective claim.
As it stands, however, something needs to be changed, as the current, unlinked and questionably credible citation, does not represent similar discussion on the controversy page. I'd like to hear feedback before a change is made. Jbower47 ( talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Wars and Foreign Policy as a heading would be more informative and a better way to emphasize this section. Every president has a foreign policy; very few have started two long lasting wars during their terms. Nitpyck ( talk) 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice most other recent presidents use the word 'serve' in the opening line. So the opening line should be changed to 'served as president from 2001 to 2009' or 'was president serving from 2001 to 2009' as other recent former presidents. Rodchen ( talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There should be more than just WMD mentioned in here. That was 1 reason, but not the only reason for going to war. 24.10.14.59 ( talk) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Like PNAC. Wolfowitz. Atleast mention it. They were openly saying that they wanted to stabilize the Middle East by bringing democracy to Iraq as far back as 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.157.112 ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book, which is expected to be published under the title Decision Points in 2010" As this book has been published for some time now, updating the tenses seems logical. Maybe: "During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book. The book titled Decision Points was published in 2010." References: Amazon Page with the publishing date on it. The New York Times book review dated a few days before the book came out. Online card catalog page for the book from the library of congress. CygnetFlying ( talk) 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article, in all fairness, list his arrest record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mophedd ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree.-Flagg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.175 ( talk) 10:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of this phenomenon (2002 Congressional election gains) throughout the article? Mid-term gains are considered quite rare.
This is clearly linked to his approval ratings at the time by Gallup analysts, & merits mention in my opinion. Jpabc ( talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't add the material, but I noticed the entire section's removal on the basis that what he was eating was irrelevant. I would say that as Bush himself chose to begin his statement on the death of bin Laden by speaking of the soufflés, he found it relevant, and that's its relevancy here. Here is his actual quote: "I was eating soufflé at Rise Restaurant with Laura and two buddies. I excused myself and went home to take the call."
Here is that quote reported by Time magazine. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/14/quote-bush-was-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-about-bin-laden/#ixzz1MMx2W2c2
Here it is in USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/05/bush-was-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-with-news-of-the-bin-laden-killing/1
Here from ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reacts-publicly-osama-bin-laden-death/story?id=13592860 http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/george-w-bush-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-about-osama-bin-laden.html
The Atlantic notes that he frequents the place, which serves only soufflés, and prints the menu. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/when-bush-got-the-bin-laden-call-while-eating-a-souffle/238862/
The Times of India leads with the soufflé as well: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/article/06Qg9Km2B62Mx?q=osama+dead
The conservative Free Republic notes it in the headlines they publish, but for some reason that domain name is banned from use on this page.
The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/bush-killing-bin-laden-a-good-call/delayed-reaction/#
NPR, so maligned by conservatives, actually takes it out of the headline. http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2011/may/13/president-bush-obama-made-a-good-call-on-bin-laden-mission/
CBS leads with the quote that he "wasn't overjoyed" at the news, but mentions the soufflés. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/14/politics/main20062893.shtml
As does Bush's local Dallas CBS the Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/13/2873049/bush-says-he-wasnt-overjoyed-by.html
Conservativebyte.com's subhead is "take a byte out of Liberals", and they note it in their article: http://conservativebyte.com/2011/05/george-w-bush-gives-first-public-reaction-to-osama-bin-laden-death/
It is more editorially irresponsible to remove the entire section on the basis of not understanding that Bush's quote figures into it than it is to add a detail one might view as secondary to the point. Everybody eats three meals a day or so, it was Bush's choice to respond to the question "where were you/what were you doing when you found out?" not with "I was out with my wife and friends," or "I was having dinner with friends and family", but "I was eating soufflé." Abrazame ( talk) 01:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this section really necessary? His claimed religious beliefs don't even get that much weight; is there any reason why some peoples' speculation should get more?-- Ibagli ( Talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The "George W. Bush- Six Months From Today" cartoon has been removed from the "In popular culture" section based on the claim that it "is not noteworthy". Matthew Filipowicz (the producer of this film) has been featured on
CNN,
NPR,
PBS,
HBO,
BBC, Ain’t It Cool News, the online versions of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic and the London Times, as well as Air America’s the Thom Hartman Show, The Young Turks, Ring Of Fire and great deal of sites in the liberal blogosphere including Crooks & Liars, DailyKos, Brave New Films, and many more. He has created cartoons for VoteVets, the ACLU-SC, Mother Jones Magazine, Netroots Nation, and the National Conference For Media Reform. I believe this cartoon is noteworthy and should be reinstated.
Prunesqualer (
talk)
02:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
the semi protection of this article needs to be removed so that i and others can edit it. this is supposed to be wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 ( talk) 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can edit it. Nothing prevents you from pressing "create account." I think the risk of vandalism on this article is obvious enough. Anyone can still edit it, but the administrators will be able to hold them accountable if they vandalize it. -- DavidSSabb ( talk) 01:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged the In popular culture section as being trivial. That section is simply a listing of some television shows and movies that have mocked Bush. Nothing in that section is notable; if I'm wrong, then similar sections should be created in other BLPs about recent Presidents. I recommend that section be removed from this article for lacking notability. SMP0328. ( talk) 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed In popular culture section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Bush has been portrayed, often critically or satirically, in television, films and other media.
|
SMP0328. ( talk) 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not well enough versed to add this as an article item. I ask why the incident with the Chinese over a US AWACS recon plane that the Chinese AF forced to land, the pilot and crew were held for, if I remember correctly, about a month... Happened on Bush'es watch was resolved and was a serious international incident that was overshadowed just a few months later by the 9/11 events. none the less it should be included as it was a major event when it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.13.167 ( talk) 03:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I just scanned the article and found that various forms of the word criticism are used more than 35 times, twice in the lead. That's more than twice per section including references, notes etc. This is unfounded and ridiculous, it's clear that democrats had their way with this man's article. I suggest we reword and in some cases reinvent because this article is very, very far from NPOV standards.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Could some of the facts be checked on Mr. Bush's education. Mr. Bush is stated a saying that he was an average student. But if he was a average student how did he then manage to get a Masters from the Harvard Business School. Could we have an additional fact stating what his actual marks were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.140.114 ( talk • contribs)
Before I start this, I'm a Democrat. I've only voted for one Republican in my life. I can't stand Bush. But, his work fighting AIDS in Africa needs more attention in this article. Even Bono gives him credit for it. Hot Stop talk- contribs 02:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
AIDS is number 17 on the World Health Organization's list of deadly diseases and has been dubbed one of the most preventable deadly diseases. So it was definitely a smart move for Bush to "emphasize abstinence and partner faithfulness". Also, 64% of people with aids are homosexuals who widely have multiple sex partners. Don't even try to imply that it was a bad move for Bush to emphasize that.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor keeps saying that the Washington Post and various other publications that have attacked Bush are politically neutral. I'm pretty sure all of those publications are left-wing. The Washington Post always endorses Democrats. Shouldn't it be pointed out that they aren't neutral?-- RJR3333 ( talk) 08:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Are we really so hard up for non-negative things to say about Bush that the fact he – like every other famous person who wrote a book in the last 20 years – promoted his book on the talk show circuit needs to be used as space filler? This information is biographically important to a former governor and president... exactly how? Fat&Happy ( talk) 15:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine its been deleted. --
RJR3333 (
talk)
00:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
First off keep your personal opinions out of this, second off why shouldn't it be kept its infromation about George Bush that people might want to know. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.232.22.116 (
talk)
03:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I pointed this out on the Obama page using this page as a comparison. The Bush article here has dozens of references to controversies and criticisms of things Bush did. Maybe over emphasized, maybe not. The Obama article has scant reference to anything controversial or any criticism. Wikipedia aims for NPOV and as an encyclopedia it is important that two fairly extreme presidents be given different levels of treatment because one is charasmatic and left wing, and the other not so much. Either the alternate points of view are overemphasized on this page or underemphasized on the Obama page. I have neither the knowhow nor the time to undertake a project to bring some balance here but I invite the hundreds of watchers to weigh in 70.26.39.203 ( talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Fat&Happy has removed a recently-added image in the 'Foreign perceptions' section as "unnoteworthy POV" [5]> This is the image in question:
Personally, I think the image is a reasonable enough portrayal of a "Foreign perception" (which is of course a POV, but that is what the section is about), and while not particularly noteworthy in itself, is entirely suitable as an illustration of the section topic - caracatures etc of Bush are very much a part of this "perception", and on this basis, I think the image should be restored. Apart from any other considerations, it adds a little variety to the otherwise-repetitious images in the article. What do others think? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Just removed another POV image - this time of a sign calling Bush a "Terrorist". Interesting to note, that this sign belonged to some radical Left group. The contributor who placed it obviously decided that it is appropriate to push a radical Left POV by this image. It seems that this section - namely, "Foreign perception" - is viewed by some (mostly, I would hazard a guess, hailing to us from the radical Left) as some back-door to insert their anti-Bush POV. It is not, and if too many people seem to mistake it for such, maybe it should be shut down. IOW, if having a section titled "Foreign perceptions" is viewed by radical Lefties as some invitation to use this article to hurl their well known Bush-hatred, then maybe this section should be removed altogether. I checked that Obama does not have a "foreign perception" section in his article, even though I would assume that by now not exactly everyone in the world are such great admirers of him either.
P.S.
I think I just noticed that the said contributor has just undone my change while I was writing this comment, so instead of engaging him in edit-wars I will leave it to someone from Wikipedia staff to look into this matter. Rtmcrrctr ( talk) 16:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hej,
Yes, I now know it is incorrect, but I wonder should the fact that the often applied (by media over here at least) , Jr. is incorrect, resp. just a nickname inside the Bush-family, not anyways be mentioned (briefly) somewhere in the article ?
I really thought it was part of his official name, until I found the explanation here :
Suffix (name)
I read some of the archived discussion search results on this (too many to read them all), to see if this had been decided before, but they seemed to focus solely on the junior being incorrect, not on should it still go into the article.
Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (
talk)
11:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is missing the main fiscal figures of the Bush administration. I added some of them in the following insertion, which was completely removed by another user even though the first paragraph is from the Congressional Budget Office, and in the last (third) paragraph just a dead link was replaced by a working one (it was reverted back to the dead link). The explanation was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Forp (talk): Removed polemic & restored sourced material. (TW))". If there is something to be improved in these well-sourced and relatively objective central fiscal figures, please, improve instead of removing them without replacing by an even better corresponding improvement. -- Forp ( talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
During the George W. Bush administration federal government spending increased from $1789 billion to $2983 billion (70%) but the revenues only increased from $2025 billion to $2524 billion (from 2000 to 2008). Individual income tax revenues increased by 14%, corporate tax revenues by 50%, customs and duties by 40%. Discretionary defense spending increased by 107%, discretionary domestic spending by 62%, Medicare spending by 131%, social security by 51%, and income security spending by 130%. Cyclically adjusted revenues rose by 35% and spending by 65%. [1]
The number of economic regulation governmental workers was increased by 91,196, whereas Bill Clinton had cut down the number by 969. [2]
In a February 28, 2001, message to the Congress, Bush estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. [3]
I then Googled for further sources, should also the following paragraph be added? -- Forp ( talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Also proportionally Bush increased government spending more than any predecessor since LBJ (including). [4]
I'd have to say these are relevant, especially because then-electee Bush campaigned with both issues. I think it is somewhat relevant as to his legacy and his integrity how he fared on such, for once, very clear cut measures, which he himself chose. Plus, that same yardstick has already been applied to most of the former US Presidents within Wikipedia, so that it's only just to continue the tradition. Decoy ( talk) 02:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
References
Nombember 2011 George Bush and Tony Blair was found guilty of War crimes at the international Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission [1, 2, 3]. Bush has even been sought arrested in Africa by Amnesty International [4]
It's my point of view that such information are relevant and should be included on this page also. It's already in Wikipedia [1].
Best regards, Martin Kaarup, Sweden
Sources:
[1] "Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission, viewed 2011-12-19
[2] Kuala Lumpur tribunal: Bush and Blair guilty, 2011-11-28, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html, viewed 2011-12-19
[3] Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes (Video), 2011-11-23, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211590.html, viewed 2011-12-19
[4] Amnesty calls on Africans to arrest Bush, 2011-12-02, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213316.html, viewed 2011-12-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.24.106 ( talk) 10:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Check out this article on the "war crimes." I don't think one person or country can unilaterally declare someone a war criminal. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/22/george-w-bush-tony-blair-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmac36 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I would be surprised if this correction has not come up. But in case it has not, the following statement is false: "In February 2011, Bush scrapped a planned visit to Switzerland because he feared arrest by Swiss authorities based on his acknowledgement that he ordered the waterboarding of detainees". No official statement made by Bush or those representing him made the claim that he "feared arrest" by the Swiss. In fact, numerous other articles - by more reputable news sources as well - directly contradict this statement. For example, the following AP news source states:
"Bush spokesman David Sherzer expressed regret that the Feb. 12 event was scrapped, but declined to comment on the reasons for the cancellation." It goes on to say: "A Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman told the AP that Bush would have enjoyed immunity from prosecution for any actions taken while in office based on an initial assessment of international law." Finally, "A lawyer for the Jewish nonprofit that had invited Bush, Robert Equey, said that the looming protests, including the potential for violence, were the primary factors for cancelling the event, not the threat of legal action against Bush." These statements are direct quotes from those leaders in power who know the situation first hand. There are no such quotes in the link cited on this Wikipedia article. The claim by protestors that their protests caused President Bush to cancel his trip lacks evidence, and is based more on speculation - given the statements from the authorities above who have the power to make these types of decisions - possibly to further their own agenda. Whatever the reasons, the article needs to be updated to erase the inherent bias it presents, perhaps as follows:
"In February 2011, a planned visit by Bush was canceled due to concerns of riots erupting from protests, stemming from the controversy over waterboarding of enemy combatants during the Bush Administration."
The next sentence discussing the Humans rights organizations submitting paperwork is false. In fact, they did not submit any paperwork because President Bush never made his trip to Switzerland (source 2). Therefore that sentence should also be deleted.
Source 1: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195#.TwvYRPmwXsQ Source 2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/07/george-bush-issued-travel-warning
I would make these edits myself but the page is locked down. To the moderator - please make these much needed corrections to erase false information from this page. Thank you.-- Scuba31 ( talk) 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The lede is too long and has too many paragraphs. Perhaps, remove unnecessary details about "Following this and other controversies, as well as the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.217 ( talk) 07:13, 31 March 2012 (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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 |
I think it is worth mentioning that Bush was in the running for the Nobel Prize in 2002? I'm not sure what the wiki policy for that is.
Also the statements claiming that the 2000 was a "smear campaign" seem very biased and at least do not belong on the main page of the man. Maybe on the articles for his election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.40.77 ( talk) 11:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is riddled with grammar errors. It is not right to keep it locked without fixing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.92.194 ( talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
On principle, is it all right to continue to call former statesmen having served the maximum term senators or even politicians or is it instantly discarded now that he cannot serve as president again? I am just asking because I am trying to find a way to best introduce the article using the current status as opposed to "former leader". Evlekis ( talk) 03:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Somebody needs to add his 2009 Maritime Sanctuaries, which were roughly twice as large as the 2006 dedications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellhurst ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be too biased to conclude that section with George Bush's presidnency still being percieved in the eyes of many in America and abroad as the biggest failure in American history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.233.75 ( talk) 05:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that there was no successful terrorist attacks on America after the 9/11 attacks for the balance of George Bush's presidency should be included in the "War on Terror" section of this biography. This is a pertinent fact to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedupside ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is very critical of Bush. It sounds more like CNN than a biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.134.48 ( talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
......I believe this is a fairly positive view of George W Bush as one of his distinguishing historical characteristics is he is the first person ever to be elected president of the United States after having been convicted of DUI, a misdemeanor when he was found guilty but during his presidency considered a felony everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeinlondon ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Propaganda piece.
This is panegyric of Bush (who would have thought it possible!). The whole article needs to be replaced with another. It should address the "controversies" associated with the Bush administration: the social effects of his policies on the economy, health care, education, taxation and social security "reform", the lead up to the Iraq war, his record as Governor of Texas, in which capacity he presided over more tham 150 executions, and many more. Why not ask David North to write it? Arthurjermyn ( talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
He is and was commonly referred to as "Dubya" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.123.231 ( talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
I believe that the statement "In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession." is incorrect. The definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth [1]. This did not happen until Q3/Q4 of 2008. Besides being factually incorrect, the statement is illogical as well. By definition, the longest a "recession" can be is 5 quarters. 6 quarters of negative GDP growth is no longer a recession, it is a depression. This definition actually is in conflict with Wikipedia's definition which is eight quarters [2], but most college economics courses teach six. (I will address the editing of that page at another time.) In the years 1973/74 the US had 5 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Q3 and Q4 for 2008 where negative growth GDP quarters, as where Q1 and Q2 of 2009. Q3 of 2009 showed a positive GDP growth rate which means we had 4 quarters of negative growth in '08/'09 as opposed to 5 in '73/'74. In 1980-83 the US saw 6 consecutive quarters of negative GDP which constituted a depression.
74.115.64.254 ( talk) 19:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Dubya 12/18/2009
References
Today I reverted an edit which removed text from this page using the logic that it was a personal attack. While I agree that the deleted text was a clear personal attack I do not agree with its removal as it sets a dangerous precedent for other editors to begin editing and removing talk page text. I feel it is better to leave it and just move on. If that kind of posting persists than we can take steps to report this poor conduct which violates Wiki policy WP:NPA by contacting an Admin. Generally Wiki discourages editing other editors comments. See WP:TALK and WP:TALKO. It also says that the removal of personal attacks, while permitted, is "controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable". I prefer to leave the text and have a record of an editors misbehavior so we can pursue disciplinary action against the editor if the attacks continue. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think that it is highly rude that "Miserable Failure" Redirects to Bush. Firstly, that he is a failure is an opinion, not a fact (An Opinion I don't agree with that). Secondly, when typing that, I was expecting to get to the Google bomb page (Read it to get what I mean). In short, the Miserable failure should re-direct there instead. 24.29.50.195 ( talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Shouldn't the picture at the top be his official Presidential Portrait, as that is probably the last official portrait he will have?
"In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession" is poorly sourced. The actual quote, which was in itself an opinion piece from 1 economist, states: "The current economic downturn is shaping to be one of the worst in terms of duration, job less and contraction in economic activity in the post-war period," Kwan said. One of the worst is not THE worst. The assertion should either be proven or redacted. Sdiver68 ( talk) 18:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If the Article is Going To Spend So Much Time Talking About Presidential Approval Ratings, It Should Also Reference Harry Truman, who left office with record-low approval ratings, but who years later regained popularity and appreciation for his role as President.
Also low approval ratings for an American President overseas is less significant than the article makes it out to be. Many American Presidents had very low approval ratings in other countries, who by the way don't rank Americans in general very high either.
69.171.160.239 ( talk) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is there the mention of this Under Bill Clinton and not George W Bush?
"In the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Clinton teamed with George W. Bush to form the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund." NYC2LA ( talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It's also in the paragraph under Clinton's Post-Presidency. Why not treat it the same under George W Bush? NYC2LA ( talk) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an appearance of bias in that it is mentioned under Clinton at the top of the article (as well as further on) but is only mentioned at the end of the article on Bush. Both articles should be consistent. NYC2LA ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There should be a mention of the short-lived comedy That's My Bush, in which George W. Bush was a main character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.17.84 ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
by Pesf user, some minutes ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joxemai ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know why the word "Defraud" directs the wikipedia search engine to this particular page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.138.7 ( talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What if we changed the side box at the top to link to the oil company he worked with as well as his owned baseball team under the occupation section instead of just to the petroleum and baseball articles? 150.176.164.16 ( talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys! Read the first few lines of the introduction paragraph and it say that after W:s reelection he experienced increasing criticism "from conservatives". I don't doubt that that's correct in a narrow sense, and "notable" as well. But it intuitively it seems to put a bit of undue weight (in the general sense) on the reaction of conservatives? Over his second term I'm pretty sure he lost a lot of poll support from self-described "moderates" as well? RandySpears ( talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent removed the descriptor of Albania as a largely Muslim nation. I checked the source that the section links to and the descriptor is there:
Albania Key Facts-Predominantly Muslim nation of 3.2m in western Balkans
Also, I searched through the archives to find the consensus( 1, 2) about this section of the Bush article. I do note there is some controversy on the exact religious percentages of the Nation, since they were a Stalinist regime for many years and religion was outlawed. Although the CIA World Factbook and the United States Department of State both list the percentage as 70%, a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center put the figure at nearly 80%. So the source describing the nation as a 'predominantly Muslim nation' is a sufficient descriptor, no matter which source you use. It also adds to the section describing the jubilant reaction of the country at the visit. DD2K ( talk) 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The mention of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the article should be replaced with "interrogation techniques". "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a neologism coined by the Bush administration and more neutral terms should be favored. 74.107.142.232 ( talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the portrait of George W. Bush appearing to the right just below the "Presidency" header is not the official White House portrait of the President. It was commissioned by the Union League Club of Philadelphia and hangs in the Club, not in the White House. See link http://blog.al.com/mhuebner/2008/12/birmingham_artist_mark_carder.html for verification. Robander ( talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead photo ought to be the earlier presidential photo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GeorgeWBush.jpg) as the photos of other recent presidents are from near the beginning of their administrations. The current photo, indicative of Bush's latter looks, looks especially weird when seen in reference to the 2000 election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.34.34 ( talk) 07:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! A lot of people refer to G. W. Bush as "Dubya". Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.31.185.252 ( talk) 09:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that it was a bit spiteful, but the google bombing of his name to miserable failure should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojokabobo ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 March 2010
I am a strong believer in the concept of “follow the money” Is there a way we can add the top contributors to the campaigns? Thank you. -- OxAO ( talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that the economic climate inherited by this presidential term includes the weakened economy caused by the "dotcom bust" of March 2000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#The_bubble_bursts). Other economic events that played a large role in the beginning of this administration's policy includes the Enron Scandel in Oct 2001( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal) which also brought down one of the Big Five accounting firms, Arthur Anderson ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States), as well as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack of the Twin Towers in New York city. These events caused great economic challenges for the early stages of the George W. Bush presidential administration. Ltam1162 ( talk) 01:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
9-11 was the big one. Enron did not cause much change in the U.S. economy. Maybe Arthur Anderson but not the US. The Chicken costs $1 ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The website for the George W. Bush Presidential Center (GWB's personal website) http://www.georgewbushlibrary.com, should be listed in addition to the White House website on GWB's page. After 1/20/09, it should just list the Presidential Center's site.
That is not his personal website. That is the website for the center. Slight difference. The same is that the White House is not Obama's personal website. It is his official website. The Chicken costs $1 ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I would note that while the split of the popular vote is quoted for the 2004 election where Bush defeated Kerry, "...garnering 50.7% of the popular vote to his opponent's 48.3%," the same statistic for the 2000 election is noticeably absent. The specific use of a detailed percentage for 2004 suggests the author attaches great significance to who receives the majority of the popular vote, and yet displays an out-of-place bias in an otherwise simple article by omitting the data where Bush lost the popular vote. To correct the article and make the two passages parallel, the text should read in words or effect as follows: "In 2004 George W. Bush defeated his opponent Al Gore for the Presidency by receiving a majority of the votes cast in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote between them with 50.3% cast for Al Gore and 49.7% cast for President Bush." In the alternative, please delete the second reference with respect to the Bush v. Kerry election.-- Scottie1492 ( talk) 04:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
An April 2010 poll by Democratic leaning Public Policy Polling found that the number of Americans who would rather have Bush as the current President over Obama was in a statistical tie with the number opposed, 46% to 48% respectively.[351]
Any objections to including this? Another editor tweaked the wording just a bit after I first wrote the sentence (so that the poll group is know called "Democratic leaning"), and I have no objections to that change. Grandma Got Divorced ( talk) 04:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Poll has bad sample.
Why these numbers are significant: We have hard numbers Barack won the presidency 53% to 46%, the sample group here is off by over 5% points as a base. The liberal vs moderate vs conservative numbers are also off against pretty much every other polling group I've seen. A detailed examination of the numbers reveal some rather deep flaws that really make me concerned of giving this poll more than a single sentence. My opinion, based on a solid read of the thing, is that they have a bad sample group which is not uncommon in polling and we would need multiple polls preferably from multiple sources to back this one up. All of the sources Granny provided were from editorial columns and none provided any real significance to the poll. If you must add it back in, you get one sentence with a good WP:RS, none of your prior sources qualified, but that bloated paragraph was WP:UNDUE in the extreme. Five or ten sources that say there is a poll does not mean that the poll is significant. RTRimmel ( talk) 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If the poll is called a Democratic leaning poll, the phrasing is potentially biased. There are Republican polls asking things like "Do you agree with Obama's destructive economic policies?". Democratic polls could ask things like "Do you agree with Bush's flushing the Constitution down the toilet?" Those kind of polls are designed to make people donate money because they become angry when reading the question. The Chicken costs $1 ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I literally just made my account so bear with me.
Figured I'd start with something small: The second paragraph in the 'Marriage and Family' section concerning his drug & alcohol use should be moved to 'Childhood to Mid-life' The paragraph starts: "Prior to his marriage" and it just seems out of place. -- Mdw1129 ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I just created Decision Points GWB's memoir, any help there would be great! Weaponbb7 ( talk) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't edit, but ( http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769139/ns/today-today_books/) says that it comes out on November 9. Also, it is not going to be a traditional memoir. Once I can edit, I'll help out
Articles are already being written that suggest Bush's approval might increase after his book is released. [ [1]] for example. This is/will be important but remembering the 10 year test, conjecture on the book is probably not going to be the most productive use of anyone's time. The book is being released on November 9th, 2010 (currently and subject to change). I, for one, am highly curious as to how Bush justified his actions to himself. RTRimmel ( talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Bush's approval is worthless information now that he is retired. Why not report LBJ's approval ratings now? Or William McKinley's approval rating last month? The Sandwich costs $3 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Added the fact that he is now on Facebook, source is in the article. -- Wintonian ( talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Where is the "Pending changes" that BBC is saying this article has? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.216.170 ( talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) BBC article says 11PM GMT which would be 5PM CT or 6PMET USA I assume this is when it happens Thejohansenfamily ( talk) 13:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here."
Pending changes is being added to articles slowly, because there are concerns it will either slow down or crash the site. To see which articles will have pending changes added soon, see Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Queue. There is currently a discussion about if this article should have pending changes turned on now.-- Banana ( talk) 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The word "perceived" is being added to the phrase "His (perceived) intellectual capacity is being satirized ...". This is, seen from one side, redundant, since intellectual capacity is always a perceived feature but assuming a divergence between "perceived intellectual capacity" and "(actual) intellectual capacity", (semantically) it is his (actual) intellectual capacity the one that is being satirized (irregardless of it being high, low, average...). Einstein intellectual capacity has also been satirized, sometimes as high, sometimes as being low. Satirized=(aprox)ridicule. You don't say, for example, instead of "The play ridicules you", "The play ridicules the image we have of you", for a play making fun of you. Abisharan ( talk) 01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen alot of changes regarding this article's protection status. With all of those changes, I've been left confused as to what is this article's current protection status. So tell me: What is the current protection status of this article? SMP0328. ( talk) 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
In 2004 George Bush won a Simple majority not an Absolute majority. No president ever won an absolute majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.63.151 ( talk) 02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Public image..." it was changed "Bush's intellectual capacity..." to "Bush's intelligence...". Intelligence could be intelligence services and notice that since in that paragraph there are no examples of the satires it is not clear which is the case. Therefore "intelligence" alone is not a good choice. I linked it to the meaning of intelligence being referred to. I don't mind this option but what was the problem with intellectual capacity? Why was it changed to a term that requires a link or more explanation in order for not being ambiguous? Abisharan ( talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have applied WP:PCP on this article because this article exists in the pool, and there was no other article that exists in the queue. Please leave comments here if there is any objection to this WP:PCP. 山本一郎 ( 会話) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"In a close and controversial election, Bush was elected President in 2000 as the Republican candidate, defeating then-Vice President Al Gore in the Electoral College.[5]"
It might be worth mentioning that he did not beat Gore in the popular vote (absolute count). 195.241.69.171 ( talk) 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
In regard to James Lame comment John quicny Adams was the first President elected while losing the popular vote, the second was Rutherford Hayes Unicorn76 ( talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
George W. Bush was not elected President in 2000, contrary to this article's assertions; nobody was elected President. The Supreme Court of the United States declared George W. Bush President, and called off the count of the vote. Commentary on either the popular or the electoral vote is moot. Nobody was elected because the counting was called off. The courts decided the Presidency in this election. This is a matter of public record. Maidix ( talk) 09:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "and in his senior year was the head cheerleader" seems to be a direct insult, as its tone is intentionally misleading. The fact that George Bush once led a skit in highschool to mock other school seems an insignificant fact only included in this article for the purpose of mockery. Besides, it's not even a true statement, as whatever Bush was doing certainly had nothing to do with the cheerleading organization in his school. If we must include it, at least explain it more so that readers don't get the wrong idea. Where the are wikipedia's "impartiality standards" now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.135.164 ( talk) 09:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The section referring to the firing of federal prosecutors needs updated.
Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
The investigation looked into whether the Bush administration improperly dismissed nine U.S. attorneys as a way to influence investigations. The scandal contributed to mounting criticism that the administration had politicized the Justice Department, a charge that contributed to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
In 2008, the Justice Department assigned Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with a history of rooting out government wrongdoing, to investigate the firings.
In particular, she looked into whether the firing of New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias and whether then-Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., or others should be prosecuted for his dismissal.
"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."
Prosecutors also said there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with lying to Congress or investigators.
Iglesias was fired after the head of the state's Republican Party e-mailed the White House to complain that the U.S. attorney in New Mexico was soft on voter fraud. The GOP official asked that Iglesias be replaced so that the state could "make some real progress in cleaning up a state notorious for crooked elections."
Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony to House Judiciary Committee investigators that presidential political adviser Karl Rove was "very agitated" over Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."
Rove has said he played no role in deciding which U.S. attorneys were retained and which were replaced, that politics played no role in the Bush administration's removal of U.S. attorneys and that he never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution.
Domenici made three phone calls to the attorney general in 2005 and 2006 and one to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in October 2006 complaining about the performance of Iglesias.
TexasRangersFan (
talk)
20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, George Walker Bush was assigned to Georgia. There is no proof or documentation that he ever reported for duty there. The squadron commander is on record as having no recollection of Bush reporting for duty either.
This sentence should be annotated as "Requires Substantiation" or better yet, removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.238.64 ( talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the list of bush's ancestors and found that only a few are germans. More of them are actaully scottish or even irish. Can someone correct the "primarily of german descent" sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.102.38 ( talk) 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker, have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance.[39] In June 2005, the United States Department of Defense released all the records of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, which remain in its official archives.[40]
The above is quoted from the entry. The documents that are mentioned as being in the "official archives" do not mention if those documents refute or confirm the "critics". This would be good information to have included in the last sentence; ".... confirming the criticism." or .... refuting the criticism."
24.115.255.39 ( talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the limited ancestry chart in the article, but I propose that it be hidden by default. It is not really very important to know President Bush's great-great-great-grandfather, and the colors and large size detract from the rest of the article as a whole. Amit ► 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Despite possible vandalism open up the article. -- 93.82.6.206 ( talk) 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
[3] Despite beeing proteced there is vandalism on Barack Obama page. So it makes no difference, protected or not. -- 93.82.6.206 ( talk) 08:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to put a point on editorials from left leaning publications calling Bush the worst President ever? Unicorn76 ( talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. Is is appropriate to include: 'Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker, have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance' especially given the arguments preventing any mention on Al Gore's page regarding the Oregon sex scandel. If that is not mentioned because it is not 'proven', then this comment regarding Bush should also not be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.144.142.243 ( talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The war in Iraq has been accused of being a war of aggression. As the President, Bush is simultaneously accused of being a war criminal. Should there not be a mention of these accusations on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.174.156 ( talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of a country against its tyrant? seems pretty unencyclopedic and blatant POV to me. There is no such thing as a just war of aggression, according to international law and the UN charter, and there is no dispute that there was no legal or moral basis for the war in Iraq. There should certainly be mentions of the amount of people that died directly due to Bush involvement, and his illegal war, as well as possible war crime tribunals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.225.100 ( talk) 05:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Housing market correction is a use of weasel words. should be housing market crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacisd34 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
An image of President Bush with Pope John Paul II appears twice in the article: under Foreign policy and Foreign perceptions. Is this duplication correct or does it need to be fixed? SMP0328. ( talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Also just noticed that. Needs to be fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.158.127 ( talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Memoir by GW Bush43 is out Nov 9, 2010 titled "[Decision Points]" which should be added to the End of page references Here's amazon.com ref for that new memoir by Bush43 ... http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288999056&sr=1-1 huangde hoondai sr 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Post-presidency section should be updated to show that Decision Points has been published. 69.99.140.114 ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I was reading through an mX newspaper from March 2, 2010, and I discovered that in one caption, entitled "It's True!", it states:
Former president George W. Bush and Senator John Kerr [sic] are related (to) Hugh Hefner. The Playboy founder is ninth cousin to both men.
Further research points to an article written by Joel Roberts for CBS News, Bush, Kerry & Hefner: Odd Cousins.
Although a truly unusual piece of information, is this worth adding to Wikipedia? Eug.galeotti ( talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there been much activity on this page within the last months, I would like to remind everyone to stay neural about some very controversial decisions this president made which are still in effect in the world we live in today. I do see that some "failing" during his leadership have been toned down. Wikipedia is not the place for history revisionism, all negative and positive things some be brought to the table so the reader can decide for them-selfs about there opinion on his presidency. Thanatos465 ( talk) 03:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the info about the attempt to arrest Bush in Switzerland to a "Charges of human rights violations" subsection of the "Post-presidency" section. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, indeed captivating and lively as a Pinochet vs. Bush, quality versus quantity debate might be-- I hope the above editors will forgive a gentle reminder, taken from the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are editing an encyclopedia, not moderating an O'Reiily or Chris Mathews show. Which I grant would be more fun. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked at Bush's family tree and he has more Irish ancestors than German ancestors. Can someone change the "primarily of german descent" part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.136.167 ( talk) 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Descended from early American colonists, Bush also has distant English, French, German, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh ancestry.
On 25 February 2011, I added the following in the 2000 Primary section. In my opinion, the deletions first by The Magnificent Clean-keeper and then by Jojhutton were unwarranted: George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/
1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html
Italus ( talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I just recently removed the addition of some "assassination attempts" to the article. It was my understanding that at least the outside the White House. Attempt would not be included because Bush was not the target. The other addition I'm not sure about, but was not cited and I've never heard of that happening. Otherwise, if anyone wants to open up a new discussion, this would be the section to do so. Jojhutton ( talk) 13:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the final statement in this section indicates that he fulfilled his six years, and makes no mention of the controversy surrounding it (although this is linked at the start of the subsection to the controversey page).
This does not match what we have in the controversy page, in which the sources indicate there is doubt, if not direct statement, that he did not finish those six years. Conversely, the reference given in the main article to support that is a transcript from a Fox News panel discussion, which is not able to be checked (no direct link). This is not the sort of citation that holds up well, even if it wasn't contrary to our other page.
I'm not an adovcate for conspiracy theory and I want to keep this as NPOV as possible. My recommendation, therefore, is either to:
A) remove the "6 year" portion of the statement, leaving "He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974", allowing the issue to be dealt with on the controversy page; or
B) recognize there is a controversy with a statement like "There is disagreement as to whether Bush fulfilled his full 6-year committment". This is a statement of fact, rather than opinion...it simply says there is disagreement, not that there is evidence, etc, which would be a subjective claim.
As it stands, however, something needs to be changed, as the current, unlinked and questionably credible citation, does not represent similar discussion on the controversy page. I'd like to hear feedback before a change is made. Jbower47 ( talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Wars and Foreign Policy as a heading would be more informative and a better way to emphasize this section. Every president has a foreign policy; very few have started two long lasting wars during their terms. Nitpyck ( talk) 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice most other recent presidents use the word 'serve' in the opening line. So the opening line should be changed to 'served as president from 2001 to 2009' or 'was president serving from 2001 to 2009' as other recent former presidents. Rodchen ( talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There should be more than just WMD mentioned in here. That was 1 reason, but not the only reason for going to war. 24.10.14.59 ( talk) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Like PNAC. Wolfowitz. Atleast mention it. They were openly saying that they wanted to stabilize the Middle East by bringing democracy to Iraq as far back as 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.157.112 ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book, which is expected to be published under the title Decision Points in 2010" As this book has been published for some time now, updating the tenses seems logical. Maybe: "During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book. The book titled Decision Points was published in 2010." References: Amazon Page with the publishing date on it. The New York Times book review dated a few days before the book came out. Online card catalog page for the book from the library of congress. CygnetFlying ( talk) 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article, in all fairness, list his arrest record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mophedd ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree.-Flagg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.175 ( talk) 10:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of this phenomenon (2002 Congressional election gains) throughout the article? Mid-term gains are considered quite rare.
This is clearly linked to his approval ratings at the time by Gallup analysts, & merits mention in my opinion. Jpabc ( talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't add the material, but I noticed the entire section's removal on the basis that what he was eating was irrelevant. I would say that as Bush himself chose to begin his statement on the death of bin Laden by speaking of the soufflés, he found it relevant, and that's its relevancy here. Here is his actual quote: "I was eating soufflé at Rise Restaurant with Laura and two buddies. I excused myself and went home to take the call."
Here is that quote reported by Time magazine. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/14/quote-bush-was-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-about-bin-laden/#ixzz1MMx2W2c2
Here it is in USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/05/bush-was-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-with-news-of-the-bin-laden-killing/1
Here from ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reacts-publicly-osama-bin-laden-death/story?id=13592860 http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/george-w-bush-eating-souffle-when-obama-called-about-osama-bin-laden.html
The Atlantic notes that he frequents the place, which serves only soufflés, and prints the menu. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/when-bush-got-the-bin-laden-call-while-eating-a-souffle/238862/
The Times of India leads with the soufflé as well: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/article/06Qg9Km2B62Mx?q=osama+dead
The conservative Free Republic notes it in the headlines they publish, but for some reason that domain name is banned from use on this page.
The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/bush-killing-bin-laden-a-good-call/delayed-reaction/#
NPR, so maligned by conservatives, actually takes it out of the headline. http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2011/may/13/president-bush-obama-made-a-good-call-on-bin-laden-mission/
CBS leads with the quote that he "wasn't overjoyed" at the news, but mentions the soufflés. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/14/politics/main20062893.shtml
As does Bush's local Dallas CBS the Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/13/2873049/bush-says-he-wasnt-overjoyed-by.html
Conservativebyte.com's subhead is "take a byte out of Liberals", and they note it in their article: http://conservativebyte.com/2011/05/george-w-bush-gives-first-public-reaction-to-osama-bin-laden-death/
It is more editorially irresponsible to remove the entire section on the basis of not understanding that Bush's quote figures into it than it is to add a detail one might view as secondary to the point. Everybody eats three meals a day or so, it was Bush's choice to respond to the question "where were you/what were you doing when you found out?" not with "I was out with my wife and friends," or "I was having dinner with friends and family", but "I was eating soufflé." Abrazame ( talk) 01:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this section really necessary? His claimed religious beliefs don't even get that much weight; is there any reason why some peoples' speculation should get more?-- Ibagli ( Talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The "George W. Bush- Six Months From Today" cartoon has been removed from the "In popular culture" section based on the claim that it "is not noteworthy". Matthew Filipowicz (the producer of this film) has been featured on
CNN,
NPR,
PBS,
HBO,
BBC, Ain’t It Cool News, the online versions of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic and the London Times, as well as Air America’s the Thom Hartman Show, The Young Turks, Ring Of Fire and great deal of sites in the liberal blogosphere including Crooks & Liars, DailyKos, Brave New Films, and many more. He has created cartoons for VoteVets, the ACLU-SC, Mother Jones Magazine, Netroots Nation, and the National Conference For Media Reform. I believe this cartoon is noteworthy and should be reinstated.
Prunesqualer (
talk)
02:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
the semi protection of this article needs to be removed so that i and others can edit it. this is supposed to be wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 ( talk) 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can edit it. Nothing prevents you from pressing "create account." I think the risk of vandalism on this article is obvious enough. Anyone can still edit it, but the administrators will be able to hold them accountable if they vandalize it. -- DavidSSabb ( talk) 01:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged the In popular culture section as being trivial. That section is simply a listing of some television shows and movies that have mocked Bush. Nothing in that section is notable; if I'm wrong, then similar sections should be created in other BLPs about recent Presidents. I recommend that section be removed from this article for lacking notability. SMP0328. ( talk) 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed In popular culture section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Bush has been portrayed, often critically or satirically, in television, films and other media.
|
SMP0328. ( talk) 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not well enough versed to add this as an article item. I ask why the incident with the Chinese over a US AWACS recon plane that the Chinese AF forced to land, the pilot and crew were held for, if I remember correctly, about a month... Happened on Bush'es watch was resolved and was a serious international incident that was overshadowed just a few months later by the 9/11 events. none the less it should be included as it was a major event when it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.13.167 ( talk) 03:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I just scanned the article and found that various forms of the word criticism are used more than 35 times, twice in the lead. That's more than twice per section including references, notes etc. This is unfounded and ridiculous, it's clear that democrats had their way with this man's article. I suggest we reword and in some cases reinvent because this article is very, very far from NPOV standards.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Could some of the facts be checked on Mr. Bush's education. Mr. Bush is stated a saying that he was an average student. But if he was a average student how did he then manage to get a Masters from the Harvard Business School. Could we have an additional fact stating what his actual marks were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.140.114 ( talk • contribs)
Before I start this, I'm a Democrat. I've only voted for one Republican in my life. I can't stand Bush. But, his work fighting AIDS in Africa needs more attention in this article. Even Bono gives him credit for it. Hot Stop talk- contribs 02:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
AIDS is number 17 on the World Health Organization's list of deadly diseases and has been dubbed one of the most preventable deadly diseases. So it was definitely a smart move for Bush to "emphasize abstinence and partner faithfulness". Also, 64% of people with aids are homosexuals who widely have multiple sex partners. Don't even try to imply that it was a bad move for Bush to emphasize that.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor keeps saying that the Washington Post and various other publications that have attacked Bush are politically neutral. I'm pretty sure all of those publications are left-wing. The Washington Post always endorses Democrats. Shouldn't it be pointed out that they aren't neutral?-- RJR3333 ( talk) 08:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Are we really so hard up for non-negative things to say about Bush that the fact he – like every other famous person who wrote a book in the last 20 years – promoted his book on the talk show circuit needs to be used as space filler? This information is biographically important to a former governor and president... exactly how? Fat&Happy ( talk) 15:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine its been deleted. --
RJR3333 (
talk)
00:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
First off keep your personal opinions out of this, second off why shouldn't it be kept its infromation about George Bush that people might want to know. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.232.22.116 (
talk)
03:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I pointed this out on the Obama page using this page as a comparison. The Bush article here has dozens of references to controversies and criticisms of things Bush did. Maybe over emphasized, maybe not. The Obama article has scant reference to anything controversial or any criticism. Wikipedia aims for NPOV and as an encyclopedia it is important that two fairly extreme presidents be given different levels of treatment because one is charasmatic and left wing, and the other not so much. Either the alternate points of view are overemphasized on this page or underemphasized on the Obama page. I have neither the knowhow nor the time to undertake a project to bring some balance here but I invite the hundreds of watchers to weigh in 70.26.39.203 ( talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Fat&Happy has removed a recently-added image in the 'Foreign perceptions' section as "unnoteworthy POV" [5]> This is the image in question:
Personally, I think the image is a reasonable enough portrayal of a "Foreign perception" (which is of course a POV, but that is what the section is about), and while not particularly noteworthy in itself, is entirely suitable as an illustration of the section topic - caracatures etc of Bush are very much a part of this "perception", and on this basis, I think the image should be restored. Apart from any other considerations, it adds a little variety to the otherwise-repetitious images in the article. What do others think? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Just removed another POV image - this time of a sign calling Bush a "Terrorist". Interesting to note, that this sign belonged to some radical Left group. The contributor who placed it obviously decided that it is appropriate to push a radical Left POV by this image. It seems that this section - namely, "Foreign perception" - is viewed by some (mostly, I would hazard a guess, hailing to us from the radical Left) as some back-door to insert their anti-Bush POV. It is not, and if too many people seem to mistake it for such, maybe it should be shut down. IOW, if having a section titled "Foreign perceptions" is viewed by radical Lefties as some invitation to use this article to hurl their well known Bush-hatred, then maybe this section should be removed altogether. I checked that Obama does not have a "foreign perception" section in his article, even though I would assume that by now not exactly everyone in the world are such great admirers of him either.
P.S.
I think I just noticed that the said contributor has just undone my change while I was writing this comment, so instead of engaging him in edit-wars I will leave it to someone from Wikipedia staff to look into this matter. Rtmcrrctr ( talk) 16:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hej,
Yes, I now know it is incorrect, but I wonder should the fact that the often applied (by media over here at least) , Jr. is incorrect, resp. just a nickname inside the Bush-family, not anyways be mentioned (briefly) somewhere in the article ?
I really thought it was part of his official name, until I found the explanation here :
Suffix (name)
I read some of the archived discussion search results on this (too many to read them all), to see if this had been decided before, but they seemed to focus solely on the junior being incorrect, not on should it still go into the article.
Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (
talk)
11:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is missing the main fiscal figures of the Bush administration. I added some of them in the following insertion, which was completely removed by another user even though the first paragraph is from the Congressional Budget Office, and in the last (third) paragraph just a dead link was replaced by a working one (it was reverted back to the dead link). The explanation was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Forp (talk): Removed polemic & restored sourced material. (TW))". If there is something to be improved in these well-sourced and relatively objective central fiscal figures, please, improve instead of removing them without replacing by an even better corresponding improvement. -- Forp ( talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
During the George W. Bush administration federal government spending increased from $1789 billion to $2983 billion (70%) but the revenues only increased from $2025 billion to $2524 billion (from 2000 to 2008). Individual income tax revenues increased by 14%, corporate tax revenues by 50%, customs and duties by 40%. Discretionary defense spending increased by 107%, discretionary domestic spending by 62%, Medicare spending by 131%, social security by 51%, and income security spending by 130%. Cyclically adjusted revenues rose by 35% and spending by 65%. [1]
The number of economic regulation governmental workers was increased by 91,196, whereas Bill Clinton had cut down the number by 969. [2]
In a February 28, 2001, message to the Congress, Bush estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. [3]
I then Googled for further sources, should also the following paragraph be added? -- Forp ( talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Also proportionally Bush increased government spending more than any predecessor since LBJ (including). [4]
I'd have to say these are relevant, especially because then-electee Bush campaigned with both issues. I think it is somewhat relevant as to his legacy and his integrity how he fared on such, for once, very clear cut measures, which he himself chose. Plus, that same yardstick has already been applied to most of the former US Presidents within Wikipedia, so that it's only just to continue the tradition. Decoy ( talk) 02:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
References
Nombember 2011 George Bush and Tony Blair was found guilty of War crimes at the international Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission [1, 2, 3]. Bush has even been sought arrested in Africa by Amnesty International [4]
It's my point of view that such information are relevant and should be included on this page also. It's already in Wikipedia [1].
Best regards, Martin Kaarup, Sweden
Sources:
[1] "Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission, viewed 2011-12-19
[2] Kuala Lumpur tribunal: Bush and Blair guilty, 2011-11-28, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html, viewed 2011-12-19
[3] Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes (Video), 2011-11-23, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211590.html, viewed 2011-12-19
[4] Amnesty calls on Africans to arrest Bush, 2011-12-02, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213316.html, viewed 2011-12-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.24.106 ( talk) 10:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Check out this article on the "war crimes." I don't think one person or country can unilaterally declare someone a war criminal. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/22/george-w-bush-tony-blair-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmac36 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I would be surprised if this correction has not come up. But in case it has not, the following statement is false: "In February 2011, Bush scrapped a planned visit to Switzerland because he feared arrest by Swiss authorities based on his acknowledgement that he ordered the waterboarding of detainees". No official statement made by Bush or those representing him made the claim that he "feared arrest" by the Swiss. In fact, numerous other articles - by more reputable news sources as well - directly contradict this statement. For example, the following AP news source states:
"Bush spokesman David Sherzer expressed regret that the Feb. 12 event was scrapped, but declined to comment on the reasons for the cancellation." It goes on to say: "A Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman told the AP that Bush would have enjoyed immunity from prosecution for any actions taken while in office based on an initial assessment of international law." Finally, "A lawyer for the Jewish nonprofit that had invited Bush, Robert Equey, said that the looming protests, including the potential for violence, were the primary factors for cancelling the event, not the threat of legal action against Bush." These statements are direct quotes from those leaders in power who know the situation first hand. There are no such quotes in the link cited on this Wikipedia article. The claim by protestors that their protests caused President Bush to cancel his trip lacks evidence, and is based more on speculation - given the statements from the authorities above who have the power to make these types of decisions - possibly to further their own agenda. Whatever the reasons, the article needs to be updated to erase the inherent bias it presents, perhaps as follows:
"In February 2011, a planned visit by Bush was canceled due to concerns of riots erupting from protests, stemming from the controversy over waterboarding of enemy combatants during the Bush Administration."
The next sentence discussing the Humans rights organizations submitting paperwork is false. In fact, they did not submit any paperwork because President Bush never made his trip to Switzerland (source 2). Therefore that sentence should also be deleted.
Source 1: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195#.TwvYRPmwXsQ Source 2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/07/george-bush-issued-travel-warning
I would make these edits myself but the page is locked down. To the moderator - please make these much needed corrections to erase false information from this page. Thank you.-- Scuba31 ( talk) 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The lede is too long and has too many paragraphs. Perhaps, remove unnecessary details about "Following this and other controversies, as well as the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.217 ( talk) 07:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)