Misplaced Pages

Talk:George W. Bush: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:36, 3 September 2006 editAuburnPilot (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,289 edits →Deletion of 'Inappropriate Statements': re imposter← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:14, 22 December 2024 edit undoZzzs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,266 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 2405:6E00:263F:C4A:58E1:CB96:C02E:C95B (talk) to last revision by ClueBot IIITags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheaderlong}} {{Talk header}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|importance=Top|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{American English}}
{{WPCD}}
{{Article history
{{facfailed}}
|action1=GAN
{{TrollWarning}}
|action1date=2006-01-27, 08:53:00
{{Link FA|ast}}
|action1result=listed
{{WikiProject Texas}}
|action1oldid=36917100
{{High-traffic|date=August 11, 2006|url=http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia|site=Atlantic Monthly}}
|action2=GAR
{{todo}}
|action2date=2006-02-24, 01:10:33
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|action2result=delisted
|-
|action2oldid=40942684
!align="center"|]<br>]
|action3=FAC
----
|action3date=00:43, 27 February 2006
|-
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush/archive1
|
|action3result=not promoted
{{hidden begin|header=2002 - 2003}}
|action3oldid=41378601
], ], ]
|action4=PR
{{hidden end}}
|action4date=08:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
{{hidden begin|header=2004}}
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/George W. Bush/archive1
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|action4oldid=50550156
{{hidden end}}
|action5=GAN
{{hidden begin|header=2005}}
|action5date=2007-02-13, 15:19:14
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|action5result=listed
{{hidden end}}
|action5oldid=107807239
{{hidden begin|header=2006}}
|action6=GAR
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|action6date=June 23, 2009
{{hidden end}}
|action6result=Kept
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
|action6oldid=298261331
|action6link=/GA1
|action7=GAR
|action7date=15:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
|action7result=kept
|action7oldid=448043312
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/George W. Bush/1
|itndate=24 February 2004
|action8 = FAC
|action8date = 2021-08-01
|action8link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush/archive2
|action8result = failed
|action8oldid = 1035849923
|topic=Socsci


|action9 = GAR
== Foreign Policy and other Criticisms ==
|action9date = 02:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm all for a balanced approach to this wikipedia entry. But I'm finding that many criticisms, those based on factual political analysis, are either swept under the carpet with "main article links" or not mentioned at all. I added Treaty Withdrawals to the Foreign Policy section, and mostly just listed the main points that the ] wiki entry lists. It's really late at night and I don't want to dig through textbooks and class notes, but there is a lot to be said briefly in this and that section. Would people with political science and international relations knowledge and referencing help me to reform parts of these 2 articles, and make any other notes of what might need expanding upon. Thanks.
|action9link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/George W. Bush/2
---] 2:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
|action9result = delisted
|action9oldid = 1248655569
|currentstatus = DGA
}}
{{afd-merged-from|George W. Bush Street|George W. Bush Street|3 November 2012}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=y|listas=Bush, George W.|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=low|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Top}}
{{WikiProject Baseball|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Connecticut|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|Aviation=y|Biography=y|US=y|Cold-War=y|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=y|American-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|TX=y|TX-importance=High|DC=y|DC-importance=Mid|USGov=y|USGov-importance=High|USgovernors=y|USgovernors-importance=High|USPresidents=y|USPresidents-importance=Top|USPE=y|USPE-importance=Top|USMIL=yes|portal1-name=United States |portal1-link=Selected biography/11 |portal2-name=Connecticut |portal2-link=Selected biography/2 |portal3-name=Conservatism |portal3-link=Selected article/9 }}
}}
{{press|multiauthor=]|date=2008-04-21|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081229192254/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/|title=Liberal Web|org=]|section1=April 2008|author2=]|date2=2009-02-03|url2=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title2=Is Misplaced Pages cracking up?|org2=]|section2=February 2009|date3=2009-08-17|url3=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title3=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org3=]|author3=| date4=2010-06-15|url4=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10312095.stm|title4=Misplaced Pages introduces edit mechanism for divisive pages|org4=]|author4= |date5=2013-07-18|url5=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613|title5=Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed|org5=]|author5=|author6=Megan Garber|title6=Okay, Who Edited the 'Choco Taco' Misplaced Pages Page From Congress?|org6='']''|url6=http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/okay-who-edited-the-choco-taco-wikipedia-page-from-a-congressional-computer/374488/|date6=2014-07-15|author7=Logan Silva|title7=Help Students Evaluate Misplaced Pages as a 21st Century Research Skill|org7='']''|url7=https://ww2.kqed.org/education/2019/05/23/help-students-evaluate-wikipedia-as-a-21st-century-research-skill/|date7=2019-05-23|author8=Richard Cooke|title8=Misplaced Pages Is the Last Best Place on the Internet|org8='']''|url8=https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/|date8=February 17, 2020|accessdate8=February 27, 2020}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}}


{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1=
== Vague/unsupported statements ==
{{Annual readership}}
This statement makes me uncomfortable, as it asserts causality without an authoritative source (I could see it being backed up by survey results with many answering "Why do you support the president?" with "His response to 9/11"; that said, I'd still be more comfortable with it reading along the lines of "Surveys taken soon after the attacks showed a marked increase in his approval ratings, with a majority supporting his response to the 9/11 attacks." or something).
{{Annual report|] and ]}}
*"His response to 9/11 led to an immediate surge in his popularity."
{{Old merge full| otherpage = Security incidents involving George W. Bush| date = 20:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)| result = '''to not merge'''| talk = Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 61#Merger proposal| URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&oldid=1051384728}}
---] 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
}}
{{pp-move}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchsize=100000
|numberstart=61
|minkeepthreads=4
|age=2160|<!--90 days-->
|archiveprefix=Talk:George W. Bush/Archive
|format= %%i
|archivebox=no
|box-advert=yes
}}
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}}


== GA concerns ==
I'm doing a run-through of the article for any statements that look like they need some citation. I've decided that I'll note them here first rather than simply deleting them so that the person(s) who put them in the article have a chance to provide sources for them. (Also a few other statements I have issues with.)


I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. My concerns are outlined below:
*"Bush was an entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas..." (Intro) - It's common knowledge by now that he was involved in the oil industry in some way, but the problem here is with the term "entrepreneur." It has very positive connotations in American society, so we should hesitate to apply it to him without some verification that it's valid. Personally, I would only use the term if the person it referred to innovated a new, successful business, which is definitely not the case here.
*<strike>"George W. Bush is the first president to have run a marathon. Before running for governor of Texas he completed the 1993 Houston Marathon in 3:44:52 for a pace of about 8:36/mile. He had been running since he was 26 and, before taking office, ran 15 to 30 miles a week." (Early Life) - Need a source for this</strike>
: See http://www.runnersworld.com/footnotes/gwbush/racingrecord.html for Runners World listing of his races. See also "20 Questions for President George W. Bush: A Running Conversation by Bob Wischnia & Paul Carrozza" at http://www.runnersworld.com/footnotes/gwbush/20questions.html which has the following Q and A with Bush:
::Q "I know you ran a marathon in Houston in 1993. What are your recollections from that?
::A"I was distraught after my dad was defeated in 1992 so I decided I was going to set a little project for myself. I wanted to run the White Rock Marathon in Dallas so I began training intensely for it. I gave myself a month to train for it and pushed myself incredibly hard as this after-election therapy. But I got sick and it was really a foolish attempt on my part.
::Q"It takes a lot longer than a month to get ready for a marathon."
::A"Dr. Ken Cooper of the Cooper Clinic told me the same thing. So I set my sights on Houston which gave me some more time to train. I ran it in 3:44. I ran the first mile in 8 _ minutes and the last mile in 8 _ minutes. It was one of the great experiences of my life."] 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Thank you; that citation has been added. ---] 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


*At over 14,000 words, ] says that article is almost at a point where it should be divided or trimmed. I think there are lots of sections with too much, unencyclopedia or non-notable information that can be cut, such as the "Publications and appearances", "Job approval", and "Iraq invasion". Other sections, such as "Hobbies" and "Security incidents" can probably be cut or moved to other sections of the article.
*"Although Bush was criticized for violating the constitutional separation of church and state ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."), his initiative was popular with most people across the state, especially religious and social conservatives." (Governor of Texas) - Fixed up some POV issues in this, but both parts of the statement will still need sourcing. I'm sure there's something out there for the first part, just have to find it. Not so sure about the second part.
*There are a lot of sources listed in "Further reading". Can these be used as inline citations in the article, or should they be removed?
*"As one of the most popular governors in the nation..." (2000 Presidential election) - Unless we can source this, it's blatantly POV.
*The lead, at five paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at ].
*"While stressing his successful record as governor of Texas, Bush's campaign attacked the Democratic nominee, incumbent Vice President Al Gore, over gun control and taxation. Bush criticized the Kyoto Protocol, championed by Gore, citing the decline of the industries in the midwestern states, such as West Virginia, and resulting economic hardships." (and similar staments) (2000 Presidential election) - Is it NPOV to talk about what his campaign claims were without mentioning his opponents' claims were?
*There are some uncited statements in the article, and other tags that need to be addressed.
*"On December 9, in the Bush v. Gore case, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the statewide hand recount. The machine recount showed that Bush had won the Florida vote, giving him 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266; Bush carried 30 of the 50 states." (2000 Presidential election) We should mention the claims or critics here that the court was overstepping its power in doing this. Just need a good source for it.


::Isn't that covered in the 2000 Controversy sections? ] 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this be nominated at ]? ] (]) 19:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)


==GA Reassessment==
:::It's covered in the controversy section of the main article on the election, yes, but it seems to me that this excerpt does an exceedingly poor job at showing just how much controversy there was. All it really says in this regard is, "The vote count, which favored Bush in preliminary tallies, was contested over allegations of irregularities in the voting and tabulation processes." Compare this to the discussion of ] in his article, where the controversy is discussed in depth. ---] 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/George W. Bush/2}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2024 ==
::::Well, there's an entire ] for 2000, so one would assume it's covered. (And no, I didn't "need" that many indents - I was simply trying to make sure my edit stood out from your comments, rather than making it appear as if I was editing your comments. Didn't realize it was such a big deal.) ] 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|George W. Bush|answered=yes}}
:::::There's also an entire ] on the 1876 election, and yet the controversy is still discussed in Hayes' article. (And on the indenting, a single indent more that the previous is preferred, as any more makes the comments run into the side of the page quite quickly. An alternative style is for each new person to use one more indent than the last, and for each to keep their own number of indents in each category. I tend not to do this, as it seems to break up the flow of conversation.) ---] 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please remove the category ], as the subcategory ] is already listed. ] (]) 21:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


== Publications and Appearances mistake ==
*"President George W. Bush was regarded by his political opponents and many in the media as lacking a popular mandate, having lost the popular vote." (First term) - Needs source
*"Bush's domestic agenda carried forward themes of increased responsibility for performance from his days as Texas governor, and he worked hard to lobby the adoption of the ], with Democratic Senator ] as chief sponsor. The legislation aims to close the achievement gap, measures ] performance, provides options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and targets more federal funding to low-income ]." (First term) - Needs cite, plus we should mention the extreme criticism of NCLB (basically, that it absolutely fails to accomplish its stated goals).
*"Bush is a supporter of stem cell research..." (First term) - Needs a cite if we're going to keep it saying that he supports the research. Some critics have claimed that his actions in banning research from stem-cells taken from embryos are (or will be) almost completely curbing research ability.


The current state of the article erroneously states that Bush attributes the 2024 victory of Trump to the health of the American republic. That is not what Bush says in his actual statement (https://www.bushcenter.org/newsroom/statement-by-president-george-w-bush-on-the-2024-presidential-election). He says that the "strong turnout" is indicative of the health of the republic. My account is too young to edit this, but I just figured I'd post this in case if someone else could adjust this, as the current form seems to imply that Bush had a political preference in this election when he made no such public leaning. ] (]) 22:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Don't have time to look any more at the moment; I'll finish this off a bit later. ---] 14:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:{{ping|TruthPromiseFolly}} You are absolutely right, and I have corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out. ] (]) 23:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, continuing now:

*"Arguably, cuts were distributed disproportionately to higher income taxpayers through a decrease in marginal rates, but the change in marginal rates was greater for those of lower income, resulting in an income tax structure that was more progressive overall." (First Term) - Will definitely need a good cite if you want to leave it saying this made the tax more progressive. The whole thing the cut did was actually quite complicated, and this was a trick to make it look like it was more progressive. In the end, people at the low end ended up paying just as much (or close to) as before, but it was in different types of taxes plus they lost a lot of benefits.
*"Bush's imposition of a tariff on imported steel and on Canadian softwood lumber was controversial in light of his advocacy of free market policies in other areas; this attracted criticism both from his fellow conservatives and from nations affected. The steel tariff was later rescinded under pressure from the World Trade Organization. A negotiated settlement to the softwood lumber dispute was reached in April 2006, and the historic seven-year deal was finalized on July 1, 2006." (First term) - Probably true, but still needs a cite.
*"Public perceptions of Bush were reputedly of lacking interest in foreign affairs. However, the Bush Administration implemented major changes in U.S. foreign policy by withdrawing its participation in the 1998 Kyoto Protocol (although in 1998 the Senate vote to participate in the treaty was 0 for and 95 against) and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, in order to pursue national missile defense." (First term) - Blatantly POV, but I can't think of a good way to rework it right now that retains the information.

Okay, I'm not done going through this, but I think that's enough for us to work on for the time being. ---] 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:Good work, DrLeebot. Articles can only become better when attention to detail is paid as it pertains to NPOV. ] <small>] • ]</small> 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

==AIDS==
Should the article mention Bush's call to renew the ], as he did in his 2005 ]: What about public or political opinion on AIDS? Perhaps the mention would be under domestic agenda and the opinion under criticism and public perception? ] has supported Bush on AIDS, for one:
Bush's stance on AIDS separates him from ] in that Bush embraces the ] mantle, while for Reagan I support it was simply patriotic conservatism. Both have been criticized for economically neglecting the downtrodden (well, except ] have attacked Bush for his massive ], but perhaps there is a bridge on addressing social issues. ] 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the above were to be included, it would also then be fair to include the criticisms of Bush's AIDS policies, e.g, funding abstinence-only programs that lack the scientific acceptance of other prevention strategies; funding religious groups through PEPFAR; purchasing only brand name pharmaceuticals for its treatment programs, instead of cheaper generic drugs. These are pretty standard and well-publicized and documented critiques of the policy, more than just griping from political opponents. In a represenationally accurate rendering of a particular policy, they seem to deserve inclusion. --] 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

==] acts==
Should any of the acts Bush signed into law in the aftermath of ] be included in the major legislation signed section? These include the Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act, Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005, QI, TMA, and Abstinence Programs Extension and Hurricane Katrina Unemployment Relief Act of 2005, Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 , Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 , and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 . ] 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Websites Critical Of Bush ==

I'm wondering why most other polticans who have articles about them in Misplaced Pages have links to websites critical of them and this article does not. Is it simply because they are being removed or that no one has found a noteable source of criticism on Bush? ] 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Looking at the articles of other recent presidents, I'm not seeing any links to critical websites. This does still raise the question of whether we should have critical sites here. And if we do, should we balance it out with positive sites? Or is it better to keep it to strictly neutral sites? ---] 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: ;-) ] 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::(Yes, I know it was intended to be humorous, but I'll still respond.) I think the difference is that Davidpdx is talking about politicians in general, while I'm looking at a more select group of politicians: American presidents. There probably are many politicians whose articles link to critical sites, like, say, ] (and what do you know, it does?).

:::But that fact does raise an NPOV concern. We link to sites critical of the Cuban president, but not the American president (who is also controversial). Since there are sites who use ] sources and are critical of Bush (and other past presidents), we have an obligation to link to them in order to comply with ]. ---] 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, the article links its pro-, neutral, and anti-Bush sources, and also its page to books and films about him, categorized by their slant. ] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (I am terrible at remembering the tildes)
::::Let me clarify that although the sub-article categorizes the books and films, the main article does not categorize its sources by their leanings. But with sources on everything from Bush being a war criminal to impartial statistics, there is diversity and the names tend to reveal where they come from, so to speak. An added list of categorized Bush Web sites should be added to the books and films sub-article, in which case the name should be lengthened to reflect the expansion. ] 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (apparently I got signed out - does Misplaced Pages do this to anyone else?)

:::::I'm going to chime back in here. My intention was to start a conversation about this and hope someone will come up with some sites critical of Bush. While there are some critisms of Bush, in the external links section there are none. Certainly that's doesn't mean these sites don't exsist, because they do. Linking books and films that are critical of Bush is not the same. They are a diffrent kind of published work.

:::::The problem is finding a creditable site (preferably not a blog) that is represenative of some of the major criticisms of Bush. A blog would be ok as long it is not origonal research. I think it should be something that is well sourced though. As I said at the start of this message I don't intend on posting anything, but I think it's worth mentioning that the article should be more balanced. ] 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==Is Bush an idiot?==
Its a valid question, according to . How come this is not expresed in the article? Or did i just miss it? --] 18:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not the best source, and asking the mental capacity of a living person isn't encyclopedic...regardless of your own personal theories. Hell, I could write on my blog that Bush is the greatest preisdent, but it isn't a valid source, as it is an opinion. ] 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NO, it is not an opinion. It is a fact of common consensus (much like the point Colbert was making). Hitler was a 'megalomaniac'; to not state it would not reflect true reality, rather it would distort it. I can cite PLENTY of evidence to PROVE this allegation. As in medical science, everything is an OPINION, an idea, backed up with evidence. This situation is no different. Everything said is backed up. A DOB is backed up by his birth certificate. Similarly, I categorise and compile facts to conclusively prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this man is the greatest idiot that walked the face of the world. The facts speak for themselves.


::I really have to say, when attempting to point out that someone else is an idiot, proper grammar and spellchecking go a long way. On the other hand, the irony is always good for a laugh. ---] 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Was that to me, or someone else? ] 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think he was referring to the web-page referenced by ], the original poster. ] 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:To ]: It depends on how you define "idiot." If you are defining "idiot" in the archaic, non-PC medical sense (which is "a person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers"), then no, obviously he is not an idiot. He's a college graduate, successful businessman, yadda yadda. If you define "idiot" as "stupid or foolish person", then this becomes opinion, and POV. And we could argue various opinions until the universe comes to an end. Either way, the question of Bush's intelligence should not be placed into an encyclopedia article until he decides to submit to a standard battery of mental testing. Which, of course, he's not going to do. ] 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


This is the funniest thing I've read in a LONG time. College graduate and successful businessman? First, if Bush were not a legacy, he NEVER would have been accepted on merit. By his own admission, he was a subpar student more intent on secret societies than on studying. Furthermore, as a businessman, he is an abject failure. Every company he has touched has turned to crapola (even the USA, which is circling the drain as we speak). Sure, this is only my POV, but I just had to laugh. I also had to laugh at "...unable to learn connected speech." Have you SEEN Bush without a teleprompter? There is verb-subject disagreement, mispronunciation, making up words to fill the gaps, and other grammatical faux pas that show anyone with a REAL education that the man is at best a bumpkin (if we give him the benefit of the doubt on the topic of idiot).

] 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:As a ] major in college, I got an opportunity to experience what "connected speech" really is. If people don't acquire connected speech, they speak only in single words or make meaningless, absolutely incomprehensible utterances, like "Applesauce buy store". Bush just makes speech errors here and there, like everyone does. Now please stop treating this talk page like a discussion forum. Bush's intelligence is not an appropriate topic for this article. Claims like "Bush is an idiot" are nothing but personal opinion. End of discussion. <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 17:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As a linguistics major, I'm sure you also realize that there are languages where "applesauce buy store" is an acceptable construction (Cyrillic languages without the verb "to be" come to mind). I also find your assertion that Bush's intelligence is not an appropriate topic for the article to be incorrect. In fact, one might argue his lack of said intelligence is a big reason we're in such a lousy predicament as a country. Of course, in order to include discussions of Bush's intelligence as sourced footnotes, we'd have to secure copies of his school and business records (most of which have been sealed by Gubenatorial order in Texas). The point is, the topic is relevant, despite your proclamation to the contrary. One last point: Bush doesn't simply make "speech errors here and there." My God, there are entire BOOKS written about the subject of his poor public speaking ability ("Bushisms" comes to mind)

] 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (corrected spelling error 22 August 2006)

I was not suggestign that the page states or debates that wether bush is an idiot, rather, that the article should mention the notable phenomena of asking or claiming he is an idiot. I provided the video as a mainstream and serious source of that phenomena. --] 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Striver. Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman for God's sake, seriously advances, and discusses with his guests, the thesis that Bush is extraordinarily intellectually incurious and lacking in intellectual depth for someone who is President of the United States. That discussion is an important subject worthy of mention in Misplaced Pages. And it's not just a matter of POV: the guy's speeches (see the "Bushisms" article for examples) show that he at a minimum has great difficulty expressing himself, and lead one to wonder whether he is in fact just not a bright person. Whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton (I'd take him over Bush in a nanosecond, myself), no one could seriously contend that he was stupid. That Bush is stupid is a very serious contention. Scarborough and his two guests (one of whom, John Fund, is a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger) all agreed in significant part: even Fund admitted that Bush has great difficulties expressing himself coherently, and that his intellectual curiosity is less than one would like. There is no legitimate reason not to include this. ] 04:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:"Intellectual curiosity" must be a talking point. I hear that term all the time. It's like "gravitas". "Bush is an idiot" is still nothing more than an opinion. ] 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is slightly off topic, but funny nonetheless. Al Franken once said the following about Rush in "Big Fat Idiot." It applies equally to Bush...

I call it being a f***** moron.

All of or PC arguments boil down to this one statement concerning our esteemed prez. Slice it any way you like, you still come up with "Bush is an idiot." POV or not, sealed school records or not, everyone with any sense at all knows it. Unfortunately, we cannot present it in the article because he sealed all the records that could prove he's stupid (probably at Daddy's urging since he is obviously not smart enough to include it).

] 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=bush&mode=related&v=pw4Bhmm22xo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg

::Nice rant. Find yourself a blog, moonbat. {{unsigned}}
::Anyone with any sense knows TheKurgan is an idiot. It is FACT. ] 06:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::So calling someone a name and not signing your comment make you superior? This entire section is really not worthy of even being on this talk page. The correct solution is to (civilly) request that the digression cease, not lower oneself to the same level. ] 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you think this should seriously be considered as an encyclopedia topic. This ignoring the fact that, yes, as much as you don't like to think so, many people in this country ''do not think Bush is an idiot''. You don't belong here if you think your opinions (or anyone else's) are suitable encyclopedia content. ] 05:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


] has featured the "Is Bush an Idiot?" issue on his program.
Scarborough never actually declared the POTUS to be an idiot, but conceded that it's something that has been pondered by those on both the right and the left. It appears that the failures of his policies from Iraq to Social Security combined with the lack of professionalism in his demeanor, as evidenced by his behavior at the G8 summit and his reported fondness for flatulence humor, have contributed greatly to widespread doubt concerning the competence of this leader.] 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In many countries of the world, Bush is perceived and satirised as someone of low intelligence, prone to mangling sentences and, above all, being ignorant of the geography and politics of the world outside America. This perception is heightened by the use of film clips such as one, shown quite often, in which he was unable to name the leaders of various countries. This perception of him and portrayal of him is not related in any obvious way to American party politics. It is surprising that there is no hint of this perception of him in an encyclopedic article. ] 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't most politicians seen as somewhat dumb in a half-serious kind of way? ] 20:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Bush is seen by an idiot or stupid by those who dislike him is due to his controversial political decisions or actions (the war on Iraq, the video of Bush clowing around before an important speech). Whether you see Bush as an idiot or not depends on what you think of his decisions (For the record, I think he is an idiot but I'm not the president, am I?).
James Cracknell 18:45 27 August 2006

Well, IMO Bush is very much an idiot, mediocre at best. Idiot is a vague term, but in his case he fits the psychological, social, and physical aspects of the word idiot (let's not bring up the bicycle incident!). I find that some of the aforementioned statements to be fairly entertaining. In any event, Dubya just seems to come off as an ignorant person, that's all. Now if there were credible facts that proved that he is in fact an idiot, we may be able to add it to the article... ] 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's a far cry from "ignorant" to "idiot". Again, the collective opinion of Misplaced Pages "experts" has no bearing on reality. ] 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if you could provide an ample amount of sources, this comment might possibly be worthy of being put up under a 'contraversy' subsection, telling how many people are of this view. You could never come out and just say that Bush is an idiot, but it would be relavant to say that Bush has been considered an idiot by many significant people. ] 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just elaborate in the "Criticism and public perception" section about how he is viewed by the general Democrat population, or points that make him a victim of satire? ] 01:17, 1 September 2006 (EST)

==Stem Cell Issue==
In the domestic policies section, it is mentioned that using existing stem cell lines is "obviating the need to destroy embryos." This wording should be changed, because it implies something that is false. Existing stem cells lines are outdated and are very limited in their potential for research. Thus, they only "obviate" the need to destroy embryos in a legal sense. In practical science, new stem cells are created and destroyed without federal support because new cells are needed for sufficient progress to be made. ] 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian Burnet, 8/16/06] 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
*I don't think either of use are qualified to make that call, inserting your own POV is called ], it is frowned up] 01:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

==Sitcom==
There was a sitcom featuring and making fun of Bush.Does anyone know what's it's name?
New Babylon
:] ---] 13:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


==Israel Palestine==

"Bush emphasized a "hands-off" approach to the conflict between Israel and Palestine in wake of rising violence and the alleged failure of the Clinton Administration's efforts to negotiate. Bush specifically disowned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for his support of the violence and militant groups, but following urgings from European leaders, he became the first American President to embrace a two-state solution envisaging"

I read this as a European, but I finThe implcation of 'Hands off' is that Bush was neutral rather than being backing the Israelis. Surely this should be altered.

== Introduction ==
The introduction is completely too long...much of the information is unreferenced and needs to be repositioned in other sections.--] 08:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Agreed''', this section could use some work--] 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::The entire article needs work. Between the article and this talk page, I have over 1,000 edits and now, after coming back to see it having not edited much here for some time, I see that the entire article is simply too long and much needs to be spun off into daughter articles.--] 10:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

*Please be careful not to selectively remove only material you disagree with in your quest to correct the problem of the intro being "too long." Thanks. ] 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

==Google Phenomenon==
An interesting fact about Google search is that if one types "failure" in the search bar, and then clicks the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, then a page contaning an autobiography of George W Bush appears {{unsigned|59.183.165.228}}

:See ]. There's nothing notable about what you describe. &mdash; '']]'' 14:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

==Weasel Words==
I tried to change the last section about experts allegations of war crimes so that it reads more as a point of view held by some people. If no one objects, I think it should be okay to remove the weasel words warning, as now I don't think the section reads as an opinion. If there are no objections, I will remove the warning in a day or two, in order to give people time to post against this action. If there is any contraversy, I will not remove the label, of course. ] 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
* No objections here. Sounds like a good change to me. ] 17:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
::Might be good to re-word it to specifically address who is alleging the war crimes, as the "some experts" is what prompted the original weasel tag. Thanks] 01:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to do that and then remove the weasel words warnings. If anyone disagrees, put it back up and talk about it here. I'm not trying to cause contraversy over this.] 01:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

==Deletion of 'Inappropriate Statements'==

At <i>15:28, August 28, 2006</i> ] deleted two sections for being 'inappropriate' ... what is inappropriate about mentioning Bush's age when he received a DUI? When a man is 30 years old he cannot be called youthful by himself or anybody else. I think it is entirely appropriate to point out this behavior by an adult; it is even a part of the public records in the state where the incident took place. Indiscretions by actual youthful offenders is often sealed from public access; the state doesn't agree with Bush about his status at the time of this incident.--<font size="4" face="corleone" color="000066">Duke</font><font size="2" face="corleone" color="000066"> 53 </font><font face="typist" size="1" color="crimson"> ]</font> 02:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
:The facts are stated, there's nothing encyclopaedic about the mention of whether it can or cannot be regarded as whatever. Reader can judge themselves.--] 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:The comment is Not encyclopedic, yet Duke53 has reverted yet again to include the remark about age. This is one revert away from being vandalism, if it isnt already. Please stop. ] 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: Again, is it vandalism or not? You should <i>know</i> before accusing someone of it. --<font size="4" face="corleone" color="000066">Duke</font><font size="2" face="corleone" color="000066"> 53 </font><font face="typist" size="1" color="crimson"> ]</font> 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Please define 'encyclopedic'. In a paragraph where dubya rationalizes his drunkenness on the basis of age ('irresponsible youth') this shows that age had nothing to do with his being a drunk. He may have been a drunk when he was a youth, but he kept at it long after he was an adult. <i>And AuburnPilot, as far as vandalism goes ... stuff it; this isn't even close.</i> I will be inserting it again when time allows. --<font size="4" face="corleone" color="000066">Duke</font><font size="2" face="corleone" color="000066"> 53 </font><font face="typist" size="1" color="crimson"> ]</font> 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't think planning to revert war over it is a good idea.''']''' 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::], I'd have to agree that a revert war is a bad idea. Also, it wouldn't hurt to refer to ] and ]. ] 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: You are about the last person who should be preaching to me about 'civility' and 'being a dick'. "] | ]" 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I don't think you need any lecturing at all. You've got the second part down pat. ] 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Civility. :)"] | ]" 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::The word "young" is in itself POV and should be avoided. 30 IS young to many people. Age is not the issue here in any event, maturity is, and that isn't easily defined. Incidentally, using loaded expressions like "dubya" is not only POV but guaranteed to kill any serious discussion and prevent many people from taking other associated comments seriously.]<sup><small><small>''''']'''''</small></small></sup> 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::His father calls him dubya so I guess that others can also. POV rules count on a talk page? Hmm ... I could see it being POV if I'd called him that on the article page. --<font size="4" face="corleone" color="000066">Duke</font><font size="2" face="corleone" color="000066"> 53 </font><font face="typist" size="1" color="crimson"> ]</font> 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::If anything, ]'s comments on this talk page show intent to vandalize this page. The comments are informal, inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and should not be included. In addition, comments such as telling me to "stuff it" are even more inappropriate and in no way add to the respectability of your argument. Declaring to continue reverting the change will begin a revert war and is most certainly against Misplaced Pages Guidelines and constitutes vandalism. ] 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Make up your mind ... was it vandalism or 'intent to vandalize' ... I don't think you know what you're talking about --<font size="4" face="corleone" color="000066">Duke</font><font size="2" face="corleone" color="000066"> 53 </font><font face="typist" size="1" color="crimson"> ]</font>

:::::::::Duke53, I am not going to participate in a revert war. You can change it back as many times as you like, but I will not revert it. I'll leave it up to others, since you seem determined have it read your way, regardless of this discussion page. ] 04:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::" ... <i>since you seem determined have it read your way, regardless of this discussion page</i>." Horse puckey ... there are two of you who decided that you want it deleted, hardly a consensus. Looks like other people other than me who are posting to the article want it included, but you two just keep on making the 'per discussion' page reference, M'Kay?
::::::::: Still waiting for your 'explanation' on vandalism and 'attempt to vandalize ... yeah, that's what I thought, no answer to that. You're "<i>ready to let the issue die"</i>. :) "] | ]" 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::I think there's well more than two people who find that the inclusion is irrelevant, lacking encyclopedic style, and at this point, very juvenile. Several of us have suggested to let it go, and let the reader decide for him/herself. Again, a little ] would go a long way. ] 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: Two people seem to be doing the deletion.
:::::::::: Again, you are the last person that should be lecturing me about civility. "] | ]" 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: p.s. as juvenile as you adding 'dook' to an article?

::That's ridiculous. I've been far more patient with your edits and snide comments than I should have been. And the ] thing is completely irrelevant; (1) I didn't add it; it was already there. (2) Documenting something that exists in a college rivalry page is hardly in the same league as adding your personal commentary to a much higher-profile article. ] 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:: How patient 'should' you have been? Stating a guy's age is now 'personal commentary' ... what a hoot! (]) "] | ]" 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:I again took out a reference to this, namely the bracketed statement ''despite his age'' for the following reason. Bush declared it to be due to irresposible youth, it is not for us to qualify that and the reader, knowing his age, can make up own mind on this one. Personally, I think 50% of the people haven't really grown up by the time they're 30. Either way, it is an unencyclopaedic addition. The facts have been stated and the year of his birth and the infractions are also stated. Anything else is not relevant to anyone unless a point wants to be made to subtract from what Bush himself said about it. That is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and borders on original research.--] 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Kalsermar beat me to it. Bush is quoted - the facts are given. Can we let it go now? ] 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm ready to let the issue die. The facts are stated and nothing more is needed. ] 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:REverted it again, do you guys have nothing better to do?--] 00:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:I agree, his DOB is given, the year of the DUI is given, so that's enough for anyone who wants to figure out his age at the time. Making a point to mention his age again is unnecessary. ] 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


:: I think it's time to get a neutral party to look at the issue of pointing out dubya's age in that section. Does anybody here know how to do that? I would appreciate it if someone can do it. Kalsermar apparently is going to keep removing it no matter how many different editors insert it. "] | ]" 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::An informal mediation can be started using the ] under the section "Making a Request for Mediation". It may be a good idea, since no matter how many people remove it, <strike>you</strike> others will keep adding it back. ] 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::" ... <i>since no matter how <u>many people</u> remove it, <strike>you</strike> others will keep adding it back".</i> But it still gets pulled, right ... "<i> per the discussion page</i>" ? Exactly <i>how many</i> people have pulled it? :) "] | ]" 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::If you'd like "someone of importance" or a "neutral party" to have a look at this, I've given you the information to do so. It's time to either ask for help, or move to another subject. As far as "how many"; on this talk page it seems that 5 editors believe it should not be included, one believes it should, and one believes there shouldn't be a revert war. ] 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::: The question was: "<i>Exactly how many people have pulled it?</i>" Obviously the others who keep on adding it haven't posted to this page. "] | ]" 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hm, why not a compromise? Personally, I figure anybody curious should be able to figure his age at the time of the incident given the information in the article, but I also don't see any especial harm in mentioning it, and it seems like something a person might as well ask. That said, statements like "Take note that he was 30 years old at the time of this incident, which makes it tough to write off as an incident of 'irresponsible youth,'" are some pretty serious ] violations. There shouldn't be any commentary involved in noting his age -- our duty is to report relevant facts and let readers make an informed decision on their own -- but the age itself seems at least relevant enough to potentially warrant two or three words in this huge article. Is there any significant reason why "On September 4, 1976, at the age of 30,..." or some similar quick note would harm the quality of the article? ] 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Thank You, Luna Santin ... that's pretty close to what was there a couple times. I think you made a great suggestion. "] | ]" 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for your input, ]. I have reverted ]'s edits yet again to match this discussion page. The article now reads as ] suggested. At this point, I have no issue with this section. ] 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Someone might want to point out to <i>2nd Piston Honda</i> that bush's age will be included in this paragraph; if he removes it again it should be considered vandalism, IMO. "] | ]" 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::Someone might want to point out to <i>Duke53</i> that bush's age will not be arbitrarily (and unnecessarily) mentioned just to bring attention to a personal point he's trying to make; if he adds it again it should be considered vandalism, IMO. ] 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:: And I know who did it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=73502602</ref> I am going to ask the administration to suspend him immediately for this. "] | ]" 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Brace yourself for a shock, but thats actually a policy/rule/guideline of which I'm unaware. I must admit though, I did laugh when I saw the paragraph signed with your name. :) ] 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Someone also might want to point out the ] to ], but more specifically the portion of ] that refers to the ]. ] 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: Funny, I was thinking that it was a <i>'team' </i> of editors from this page who were the ones '<i>gaming the system</i>'. It's odd how you guys (oops) 'forgot' to check this page before you deleted dubya's age from that section last time. Hmm .... "] | ]" 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Duke, from what i've seen, there are more people who disagree with adding the age comment, so stop with your "per discussion page" edits. If you really think you're in the majority and want resolution, then take a vote. ] 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, if you check my last revert on this article, I <u>added</u> Bush's age to the article. I did <b>not</b> add commentary. I have not reverted the page 3 times in a day, but only 3 times in 3 days. Stating his age as fact as ] suggested does not create a problem to me. The problem is the commentary <i>"even though it spanned all the way into his 30's."</i> that is added by ]. I believe stating the age is unnecesary, but if required, should be stated as fact ] 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: Two, didn't Luna Santin come here at someone's invitation to help us decide? Even AuburnPilot added the age at one time. I never added commentary, just dubya's age when he was picked up driving drunk. "] | ]" 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Terrorist category ==

I have added this article to ], because I have found that its subject meets the criteria described at ], which are as follows:

*''Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.''

Bush is the commander-in-chief (both de jure and de facto) of the United States military, which has invaded and occupied Iraq for a period of years. If that isn't illegal, then nothing is.

*''Targeting civilians.''

The U.S. military commanded by Bush continues to enforce its occupation of Iraq and its control of the Iraqi government. This would be completely impossible if civilians were not the targets of violence or the threat of violence, because civilians would otherwise be able to resist or ignore the government with impunity.

* ''Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.''

Iraq has not been in a state of conventional war since approximately May, 2003.

:America has not formally declared war since, I don't know, ]? For eg, Vietnam was a ]. Certainly, GWB has stated that this is a war, though that probably doesn't count for much. ] 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

* ''Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).''

Cleary, the modus operandi of the occupation is to coerce the public into accepting the presence of foreign troops and to "send the message" that the occupiers and the government they sponsor cannot be successfully resisted. Whether it serves the additional purpose of sending a message to the governments of other states is speculative, but quite plausible.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:Reverted, for obvious reasons, namely lack of verifiability and no mention of this in the article itself.]<sup><small><small>''''']'''''</small></small></sup> 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
::Nothing more than a comment of support for Michael Dorosh's action. Adding the President of the United States to ] is quite ridiculous. ] 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If Nat wants to seriously assign this article to that category, I feel a verifiable claim needs to be made; the article needs to state that President Bush is in fact an American terrorist, and there must be reliable and verifiable source information in the article to back up the statement. Anything else is original research and individual POV. If he can prove the claim, more power to him. Good luck.]<sup><small><small>''''']'''''</small></small></sup> 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion in the terrorist category are described ]. I don't see what issue there is of verifiability. The facts which I mentioned above, demonstrating that Mr. Bush meets these criteria, are easily verifiable and are, for the most part, mentioned in this article.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 23:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Bullshit. You need to find a thirdy party source that describes President Bush in such a manner. Some dude having an uninformed rant on the internet doesn't cut it, unfortunately.]<sup><small><small>''''']'''''</small></small></sup> 03:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I'll thank you to ] when dealing with myself and other Wikipedians in the future. This would encourage we to pay attention to the stuff that you say.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Done. Check out Noam Chomsky's recent book ''Failed States'', in which he describes the actions of the Bush Administration as terrorism. I would hardly consider Chomsky uninformed; the work's scholarship is astonishing even by the standards he has already set for himself. ] 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No shortage of those. ; in comparison:
*about 1,020 for "Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist"
*about 303 for "terry nichols is a terrorist"
*about 121 for "Eric Robert Rudolph is a terrorist"
*"patty hearst is a terrorist" - did not match any documents (so how is she in the category?)
*about 97,800 for "osama bin laden is a terrorist" -- GWB is more than half the terrorist osama is? ] 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:So you've just proven the point that a Google search is not a reliable source of information, something that should probably be self-evident in any event. As stated, if Nat can provide a creditable source that George Bush has been designated a terrorist by someone that matters, he is free to present that evidence here. I think we all know he can't do that.]<sup><small><small>''''']'''''</small></small></sup> 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::You are saying that you have already decided that any source designating George Bush as a terrorist is not "someone that matters"? So much for ]. ] 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nat is adding the terrorist category willy-nilly in order to "prove" that it doesn't mean anything, since he doesn't want it to mean anything. See ]. ] 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Get your facts straight before you go shooting your mouth off. I have added terrorist categories to a two articles. From Misplaced Pages's perspective the word "terrorist" certainly does mean something, and it means ].

:Looking at ], you'll find that it is short for ]. I agree with that completely. It applies in cases where someone is disrupting an article rather than editing in good faith. Attempting to apply Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion in a category evenly improves the encyclopedia; it's not disruption, or trolling, or any other such bad thing. It's simply an edit. Maybe it's an edit that you don't like, but you nevertheless must deal with it on that basis.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"So when Colin Powell says, as he did on the day of 9/11, we condemn people who are willing to blow up buildings for political ends—well if Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, then George W. Bush is a terrorist. That would be a logical conclusion if one takes what Powell said at his word." -- ] ] 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::You can't possibly be that delusional. Would you call FDR, JFK, and Harry Truman terrorists? ] 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Your response to other Wikipedians discussing the article is "You can't possibly be that delusional."? Does this comment really contribute to a constructive discussion of the article? You might want to take this sort of thing to an internet politics forum or Usenet, etc., where it belongs.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Absolutely. It's every bit as constructive as the original edit, which was nothing more than political posturing. Sorry if I was too blunt, but when I run across something this ridiculous, it's hard to say "pretty please, with sugar on top". And again, would you classify FDR, JFK and Truman as terrorists?] 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::You are in error. ] (which I believe is what Nat Krause was referring to by implication) only requires that editors be civil to each other. It does not, for instance, prevent me from referring to Hitler as a monster. Non-Wikipedians are not covered. Therefore your comment, being uncivil, does seem decidedly less constructive to me than Step Two's. Furthermore, it's disingenuous of you to request that Nat defend Step Two's quote of Solomon; all he is defending is the civility and courtesy one would expect on this project. Mr. Solomon is not here to defend himself, and Step Two has not indicated whether he agrees with Mr. Solomon or not; all he did was quote him. Cheers, ] 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:Fair enough. Perhaps a small over-reaction on my part. My apologies. ] 13:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: It is blatant, baldfaced POV for this article to declare Bush a "terrorist", as if this were an undisputed fact. Yes, some people think he's a terrorist. It's really stretching to apply the definition at ] to Bush (e.g. it's disputed whether the Iraq invasion was "illegal"). More to the point, that's not the only definition out there. And it's far from official Misplaced Pages policy. However, ], ] and ] are. I urge Nat Krause to stop his slow, one-man edit war. Do you realize there is no one else on your side? That everyone else in this discussion opposes adding this article to the category? Your arguments are nothing more than ]. <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your comments, which are, by comparison, very congenial. Misplaced Pages does not regard the term "terrorist", at least for purposes of categorisation, as a POV claim, but, rather, as an objective description of a person's occupation or activities. It would be strange to think that the authors of the standards for inclusion in terrorist categories had written them without considering the policies on ], ] and ]. I don't see a direct conflict between ] and the terrorist category guidelines, and there is certainly precedent by which these categories can be applied to bios of living people&mdash;they seem to rarely be applied to anything other than articles about living or recently deceased people. Since both have been in common use for some time, I think it makes sense to see them as valid and not in conflict.

:I have certainly noticed that I am the only editor so far who has been editing the article to keep the category I added, and I am, of course, aware that a few (out of the vast number of people who edit and read Misplaced Pages) other editors have disagreed with that on the talk page. So far, the number of editors who have given a critique on this talk page without resorting to ''ad hominem'' is approximately one (Szyslak). That number, one, doesn't strike me as compelling compared to the duty and prerogative I have to ].

:As for your statement about wikilawyering, I don't really have any comment on it because I'm not aware that that term has much meaning beyond serving as a mild term of abuse. However, I didn't take it personally in this case because I didn't get the impression that you intended to be offensive.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the disclaimer in ]
:This category may inappropriately label persons

Even if GWB does tick all the boxes (and I don't think he does), the label doesn't 'feel' right. Hiding a bomb on a plane, that's terrorism. Dropping bombs from planes is something else. It might be a war-crime, but it's not terrorism. Regards, ] 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:I can't agree with that. ] is on kidney dialysis, and he is described as a terrorist. How many direct, physical acts of terrorism could he possibly be capable of? Bush, by comparison, is in charge of a government which is capable of a great deal more, and has arguably caused a greater quantity of direct loss of life and destruction than Bin Laden's organization. I would certainly feel that if we included the claim, it would be critical to note that the issue is hotly contested. I think the publicly accepted working definition of terrorism includes giving orders that lead to others performing terrorist acts, funding terrorism (ref. Dr. ]), and other indirect "aiding and abetting" type activities. ] 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::This whole discussions sickens and offends me. Even naming GWB and OBL in one sentence in this way in perverse.--] 01:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Gee, thanks... ] 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Kalsermar, it's really not at all appropriate for you to bring your personal feelings into the matter.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 03:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the relevant article is ]. The acts used to justify labeling GWB a terrorist are acts by the government and military of the United States. If these are acts of terrorism, they are acts of state terrorism. GWB is not personally setting off any bombs--there's a 300 billion dollar a year military establishment for that. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages already has a nice page dedicated to state terrorism perpetrated by the United States: ]. If you look at the Middle East section, you'll see allegations that CIA-sponsored Iraqi resistance groups bombed civilian targets between 1992 and 1995. Personally, I don't think ] is a terrorist; nonetheless, these allegations suggest that he presided over a government alleged to be responsible for terrorist acts. Indeed, the page discusses allegations of US state terrorism in 1890, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1980, 1984, and so on. That implicates, in the least, ], ], ], ], and ]. If these allegations are to be believed, state terrorism has been perpetrated by the American military during many presidencies. Certainly, the allegations of state terrorism are an important topic; however, they should be discussed in the correct places. The GWB article already mentions nonspecific criticism of the War in Iraq and domestic "anti-terror" policies--if these initiatives involve acts of state terrorism, they should be discussed in and linked from those contexts, or from articles on the US military, or such. Adding a bunch of presidents and Joint Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense and CIA Directors and so on to the terrorists category doesn't really get your point across, anyway--I'm sure ] would agree that it's far bigger than GWB. Count me as another vote in opposition.---] 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:I think you're right on that point; Chomsky in his book seems to consider Bush himself fairly small potatoes compared to the establishment he is (nominally) in charge of. ] 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn it people! Everyone says Bush is controversial, well all political leaders are controversial! As soon as someone has world power, everything they do is looked at negative and positive. People thought Truman was controversial, but now that we look back, his actions were correct at the time. Look at George Bush, his actions are controversial now, but in a few years the same actions we thought bad, turned out good. Think about it. --] 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, this isn't going to stop, you know. These people don't WANT to remember that Congress authorized the war in Iraq, they don't WANT to remember that their favorite (Republican/Democrat/pick your party of interest) legislator voted for the war, thus it isn't illegal. No, they WANT to believe it's illegal, they WANT to believe Bush is a terrorist. They have their version of the truth, and there is no compromise within that version of the truth. ARBCOM is not going to work - there's nothing to arbitrate. There is no "neutral point of view" possible for these people, because their basic position is an absolute. There IS no neutral point of view for someone who believes that Bush is a congenital idiot, or that Bush is a terrorist, or that Bush is a murderer, or that the war was illegal. You're either a murderer or you're not. You're either a terrorist or you're not. You're either an idiot or you're not. There's no "well, in some points of view, he's an idiot", or "he's a terrorist, for certain values of terror." Discussing it with them is never going to be productive, because there is no middle ground that can be found through discussion or arbitration. There is no neutral ground between "Bush is a terrorist" and "No, he's not." There is no neutral ground between "Bush is an idiot" and "No, he's not." There just is no compromise possible with people who have these kinds of absolute opinions, and you will never find a "neutral point of view" these people can ever agree with that doesn't flatly say "Bush Is Hitler's Illegitemate Brain-Damaged Son." Discussion isn't going to work, and arbitration isn't going to work because there's nothing to arbitrate. You are going to have to find some other solution. ] 02:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:This is nothing new. Supporters of political factions typically see their opponents as being utterly close-minded and immune to reason. This is true of every side in this debate, as any other. The same charge could be levelled against supporters of Bush, and has been many times before, and it was just as wrong. Because all across WP, fair-minded editors of every political persuasion have managed to achieve quite a few NPOV articles. There is no point in issuing a call for an end to discussion. Without discussion, the goal of an NPOV article cannot be reached. What is needed is ''more'' communication - and more ''honest'' communication at that - not less. Cheers, ] 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, here's some honest and open communication. Asserting that Bush is an idiot, a genius, a messiah, a dictator, a champion of democracy, a bumpkin, a suave gentleman, a terrorist, an honest man, a liar, a bigot, an egalitarian, a homophobe, a humble man, an environmental rapist or an economic savior - all are absolutist statements by blind political supporters from one side or the other that have no room for negotiation, compromise or discussion. NONE of these assertions belong in this article, and no one who holds these positions can attempt to claim with even a shred of intellectual honesty to have a "neutral point of view." ] 09:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== One Finger Salute ==
I removed the recently added "One Finger Salute" video from the Speeches Section. If it is added back, a separate section would need to be created. ] 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly Bush and not some Photoshopped creation, so why not include it and why would "a separate section" be needed? He is a public figure and he knew he was before the TV cameras when he did it. ] 23:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:Edison, we must have missed each other by seconds. I left a message on your talk page. My only thought was that it isnt a speech. I have no issue with the video itself. ] 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:WP policy is to have external links only to those sites that materially aid in a reader's understanding of the subject itself. The video in question doesn't do that; it's a throwaway; a novelty. I see no reason to include it here.]<sup><small><small>''''']'''''</small></small></sup> 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The video deserves to be listed under a new section. It isn't a speech, but it is an important person. It is an action made by the person that the article is about. It is contraversial, which is why people should be allowed to see the video so that no biasing in the wording of the article will affect a person's view. This issue relates to contraversial actions made by an important politcian. ] 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== Salt Lake City protest seems like something from San Francisco ==

Anti-Bush protesters outnumber pro-Bush rally -- 10-to-1?!? '''In Salt Lake City?!?'''

*

*

I wonder if all the speeches on Bush's 20-day tour will go as well. ] 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

==Bush Internet Viral==
There has been a video circulating the internet for a while in which George Bush makes fun of a reporter wearing sunglasses during a press conference without realising he was blind. Anyone else feel this deserves a mention? {{unsigned|HenvY}}
:Have any sources that that even exists? <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>•<font color="orange">]</font> 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::This video clip would most likely meet the same fate as the "One Finger Salute" video. Look 2 sections above. ] 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::It was certainly reported in ''The Times'' in June. Incidentally, I don't think The Times has any reason to have a particularly anti-Bush agenda but was just reporting something newsworthy. It is on The Times online website as "President finally sees the light". ] 19:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::And also reported in the UK's ''The Independent''. (Note the mention of the "rare lapse into French" - even the Independent can't resist a sly joke about Bush's perceived lack of a world view.) ] 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::::There are many things that are reported and/or are newsworthy, but that doesnt mean they are worthy of entry in an ecyclopedia. To quote ] above, "WP policy is to have external links only to those sites that materially aid in a reader's understanding of the subject itself. The video in question doesn't do that; it's a throwaway; a novelty." And may I add, I see no reason to include it here. ] 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'll leave it others to decide whether it has a place in Bush's biography. However, someone asked for a source: I provided two. I'm not interested in making political points but I do appreciate good, balanced biographies and I don't think the current Bush biography on Misplaced Pages is either of those things. However, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute meaningfully myself. My best wishes to those of you who feel able to try. ] 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::A politician's attitude toward the visually impaired is certainly germain to understanding who he is. It's like Senator Allen calling someone from India "macaca." To exclude everything which does not create a favorable impression of a public figure is the province of the public relations spin doctor, but is not the policy of Misplaced Pages. Such censorship is POV. Include the material.] 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::One might be able to make such a judgement on a politician if he made such a remark knowing he was blind. The mention of this very minor and inconsequential incident does nothing to better this already very bloated article.--] 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::It has nothing to do with the <i>"politician's attitide toward the visually impaired".</i> Bush did not know of the reporter's ailments, and after learning of them, he immediately appoligized. If we're going to include it, lets atleast describe the situation correctly. ] 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
==Mentioning Miss Lewinsky==

Having her name there does nothing for the article <b><i>except</i></b> qualify bush's statements about why he ran. Is that encyclopedic? Not if your reasoning from above (<i>mentioning bush's age</i>) is correct. Readers should be able to connect the dots themselves. Every reason you gave above can be used here. It's hypocritical to use it in one area but not the other."] | ]" 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:See ]. ] 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::Which part of that did I violate, newbie? It didn't take you long to become an expert on all things Misplaced Pages.
:: p.s. A big part of these discusiion pages is communication. <i>hint: answer a question when it is asked</i>. That's civility."] | ]" 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If I were a "newbie" I would refer you here: ] but I will instead refer you here ]. You requested that somebody tell you how to begin this process. I have provided it. Please use it. ] 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
: Still can't bring yourself to answer a question? I will type it s l o w l y so you can understand it: "<i>Which part of that did I violate<i>"? It's easy to cast aspersions without having to explain yourself, isn't it? (<i>And easy to claim past edits without being able to prove it!</i>)"] | ]" 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::Duke-ster: Did you read the part at the top of the page which says "Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice?" And no biting, especially of newbies. ] 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:The difference is that one is an explanation of one of Bush's campaign strategies/slogans in 2000, and the other is random information which some guy on WP thinks needs to be inserted to make his own personal point. Are you suggesting that we all start doing what you've done here? Because i'm sure i could have a field day with the "Liberalism" article. ] 03:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there...let's calm down guys.] 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== Approval Ratings ==
Although Bush's low scores on recent public opinion polls are mentioned in depth, no mention is made of the fact that "Bush's approval ratings of slightly over 90 percent were the highest ever recorded in the history of the Gallup poll". This is from the introduction of chapter seven (Public Opinion and Political Socialization, p.205) in the college American Government textbook "American Government and Politics Today" (2003-2004 edition) published by Thomson Learning in 2003. The context of that quote is a discussion of an increase in American patriotism and support for the government following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The immediate context is: "This support bolstered the Bush administration's authority during a time of crisis. Indeed, Bush's approval ratings of slightly over 90 percent were the highest ever recorded in the history of the Gallup poll, which is conducted by one of the major polling organizations. " Some mention of this information should be made. {{unsigned|199.44.86.210}}


==intro==

This should be made more precise: "According to opinion polling, his popularity has declined." ] 17:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:14, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George W. Bush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleGeorge W. Bush was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 24, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
September 2, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
August 1, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 3, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 24, 2004.
Current status: Delisted good article
George W. Bush Street was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 November 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into George W. Bush. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government / Sports and Games
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconBaseball Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBush family (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family
WikiProject iconConnecticut High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Biography / North America / United States / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia / Military history / Presidential elections / Presidents / Texas / Government / Governors High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as High-importance).
More information:
/ 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Connecticut portal.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Conservatism portal.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2008.
This article was nominated for merging with Security incidents involving George W. Bush on 20:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC). The result of the discussion (permanent link) was to not merge.
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. My concerns are outlined below:

  • At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG says that article is almost at a point where it should be divided or trimmed. I think there are lots of sections with too much, unencyclopedia or non-notable information that can be cut, such as the "Publications and appearances", "Job approval", and "Iraq invasion". Other sections, such as "Hobbies" and "Security incidents" can probably be cut or moved to other sections of the article.
  • There are a lot of sources listed in "Further reading". Can these be used as inline citations in the article, or should they be removed?
  • The lead, at five paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • There are some uncited statements in the article, and other tags that need to be addressed.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this be nominated at WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

George W. Bush

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

At over 14,000 words, this article is WP:TOOBIG and information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. There is also an extensive further reading section that should be evaluated for its inclusion as inline citations or removed. There are also some uncited statements and other tags that should be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the category Category:Children of presidents of the United States, as the subcategory Category:Children of George H. W. Bush is already listed. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done FifthFive (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Publications and Appearances mistake

The current state of the article erroneously states that Bush attributes the 2024 victory of Trump to the health of the American republic. That is not what Bush says in his actual statement (https://www.bushcenter.org/newsroom/statement-by-president-george-w-bush-on-the-2024-presidential-election). He says that the "strong turnout" is indicative of the health of the republic. My account is too young to edit this, but I just figured I'd post this in case if someone else could adjust this, as the current form seems to imply that Bush had a political preference in this election when he made no such public leaning. TruthPromiseFolly (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@TruthPromiseFolly: You are absolutely right, and I have corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out. JBW (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: