Talk:George H. W. Bush

Awards

Im very new to this, so im not sure if im following the right protocol, but here is just a thought. It seems to me that in the awards section we should mention he was knighted (Knight Commander Grand Cross of the Order of Bath) abbreviated KBE

Jennifer Fitzgerald

I'd have to imagine that this discussion has happened before but I am rather surprised there is no mention of Jennifer Fitzgerald in the article. What's up? Seems like she would definitely be noteworthy to have some mention at the least.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Apparently you are supposed to use the talk page before making a substantial change but I'm not sure anyone reads these things.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

George Bush is the most edited page ever and dad can't get any love?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me a mention of her [Jennifer Fitzgerald] belongs in the article. Was certainly a consistent news story when he was big on the scene.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So are we supposed to discuss controversial changes before we add them to the article here or not?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Response from User:Frank

I can't say why there has been no discussion so far in response to this request, but when I saw the edits you put in, it was obvious to me that they were not within policy. There are at least three main problem areas, which I will address separately as a start. Please do not take this as an exhaustive evaluation, either.

Tone

The content of these edits was sufficient for me to revert the change without even checking any sources. It was written in a completely non-encyclopedic way:

• ...rumored to be a long-running affair... - Wikipedia is not about rumor, unless perhaps the rumor itself is somehow noteworthy, as in a meme of some kind. Generally not what Wikipedia is about, however.
• Hillary Clinton...complained in Vanity Fair... - Wikipedia is not about "he said, she said", especially from a seriously partisan political opponent. A little context about Hillary is useful too; this is the same person that "complained" about the "vast right-wing conspiracy". No opinion on the veracity of either comment, but the point is, they aren't useful as independent, reliable sources for an encyclopedic article.
• ...overprotectiveness and flashes of anger in public... - This is somehow unusual for a politician's aide and supports in any way that an inappropriate relationship exists? (I don't think so.) Have you read anything about the recently-departed White House Chief of Staff?
• In 1980, James Baker, who was Bush's close friend and campaign manager, threatened to resign unless Bush dumped Fitzgerald. - As blatent a misrepresentation of a source as one could imagine. Reading the source does not in any way imply an inappropriate relationship; it implies jealousy among aides to a powerful politician. That the word dump is often used as a means of describing the end of romantic relationships does not imply such existed in this case...even if the choice of word was intentionally meant as a double entendre.

Sources

The sources added were each questionable in their own ways:

• Washington Post article - I don't have access to this article at the moment, but the title of it is enough: Bush Angrily Denounces Report Of Extramarital Affair as "a Lie"; Tabloid Story on Rumored Relationship With Ex-Aide Called "Sleaze". Using that as support for an extramarital affair is...puzzling.
• People Magazine - This is not a bastion of reliable news reporting, especially when it is rehashing a story from the New York Post, which People (perhaps ironically) describes as a sensationalist tabloid.
• Time Magazine - Discussed briefly above; this source clearly is speaking about Fitzgerald's professional relationship and makes no hint whatsoever about a personal one. It describes how various factions within Bush's circle of advisers see things differently and don't necessarily get along with each other. Using this as support for claims (see above) is not within policy around here.
• Slate - First paragraph of this piece: "Want the best (if somewhat dubious) dish from The Family, Kitty Kelley's new treatise on the Bush clan? Follow Slate's reading guide straight to the good parts." Notice the words "Kitty Kelley" and "dubious"? These should be bright red flags that this is not a suitable source.

Words

There are quite a number of words in the edit that are completely unencyclopedic, including: rumored, complained, dump, slyly. These are charged words which do not display a neutral point of view; they all have negative connotations as soon as they appear on the page, and they unnecessarily influence the content they appear with. They form judgments for the reader, making it difficult for the reader to get a clear picture of what is actually being conveyed. For a discussion of a similar topic, please see WP:WEASEL.

Again, this is not an exhaustive discussion. The initial reading I did, listed above in the "Tone" section, was enough to revert the edits. In fact, The "rumored" and "complained" sentences by themselves were enough. These edits don't comply with policies, and cannot remain in the article. If you need more information, please read WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. (Others may direct you to WP:BLP as well, but I think that is of only minor importance, because the edits don't stand on their own merits, quite apart from whether or not the subject of the article is apt to sue Wikipedia.)  Frank  |  talk  13:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional note

(Brazile) nearly scorched her reputation at 27, when she was fired for the first time in her life after alleging that George Bush Sr., was a philanderer.  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

The Washington Post article is even worse as a source for this than I thought. It contains quotes such as the following:

• Unsubstantiated allegations that Bush once had an affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, a top aide on his vice presidential staff and now the State Department's deputy chief of protocol, have been bandied about...
• Several news organizations, including The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, have investigated the rumor but found no evidence to substantiate it.
• [Bill] Clinton said yesterday that he deplored the New York Post article and sympathized with Bush.
• Hillary's response to publishing what she had said in Vanity Fair: After the article appeared, she said she had not meant "to be hurtful to anyone."

Using this as a citation for the claim is questionable at best.  Frank  |  talk  17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank is dead-on with his analysis here. Agree completely, this quasi-information isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

All this may be fine and true. I'm not trying to make any claims as to whether or not there was an affair or whatever. That's not the point. The point is that the Fitzgerald-Bush relationship (and the surrounding rumors) was a major news story on and off for a number of years and this article lacks NPOV by not mentioning Fitzgerald. To quote WP:UNDUE . . . "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Now maybe Fitzgerald does not warrant an entire paragraph in the article but I would at least say she warrants a mention and maybe a couple sentences.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the man is 86 years old and has met many, many people over the course of his life, the "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" in this case amounts to zero. "Surrounding rumors" are just that. We do not record "major news" but rather encyclopedic content. Your edits represented "undue weight to [an] aspect of the subject", without question. This page is the place to attempt to develop any consensus to the contrary. So far, you've gotten radio silence on your first attempt to do so, and on your WP:BRD attempt to add in the material, you're meeting active disagreement. It may not seem collegial, but perhaps the amount of effort put in is a guide to how far outside of policy your edits strike other editors. In the first case, no effort was put in to even give the request any credence by answering it; in the second, considerable effort has been put in to remove it from the article and show (in great detail) why it is inappropriate. I apologize if this seems harsh, but I assure you this discussion is far more respectful than some others around here...check Talk:Barack Obama or Talk:George W. Bush and their archives.  Frank  |  talk  12:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To address a few of your points at once . . .

"check Talk:Barack Obama" - Yep, I've been responsible for submitting content on Barack's talk page and ultimately (with consensus) put it on his page where it still is today. Not really sure why you feel the need to assure me the discussion here is far more respectful then those pages though . . .

"Considering that the man is 86 years old and has met many, many people over the course of his life, the "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" in this case amounts to zero." - You are blatantly misrepresenting Fitzgerald's significance in his life. She was an assistant to him in some fashion or another for nearly his entire political career. To frame this as just one of many people he "met over the course of his life" is ridiculous.

The "radio silence" argument is not only silly but also against policy. Let me remind you again. According to NPOV "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." As pointed out, the Bush-Fitzgerald relationship has been discussed extensively in reliable sources. To argue silence is in fact other Wiki users agreeing with you is rather silly. Perhaps other users thought that it was so obvious she belonged in the article that they didn't deem it necessary to reply. This is clearly not a situation to argue by omission.

"Considerable effort has been put in to remove it from the article." - Yeah . . . by you.

"We do not record "major news" but rather encyclopedic content." - True Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. To quote from WP:NOTNEWS . . . "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As established by reliable sources, Fitzgerald was an enduring news story over a number of years. This isn't an attempt to add a news story. This is an attempt to add content on a person of enduring notability in Bush's life.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald does not appear WP:NOTABLE at the moment. We do not have significant mention of assistants to major politicians (let alone presidents) as a general rule, unless such person is notable in his or her own right. Please also read WP:SILENCE. Also, you have yet to provide any link to any major news source that gives any credence to this rumor, while I have provided direct refutation of the rumor from your own sources.

You make a fair point about him having met many people; my choice of words was not as strong as it could have been. The idea is the same, though; he's a product of the work of and relationships with many, many people over the course of his career. Since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, she doesn't become notable in her own right just for having worked for him. Even if she were notable, that doesn't mean this claim has any place on Wikipedia. The burden of proof that it does remains with you. There's no policy it meets, and several it runs afoul of.

You seem to think that since only two editors have expressed opinions against this content that there is some chance it is appropriate. It's not; you may need more time (and more editors telling you) in order to hear it, but this material is simply not appropriate.  Frank  |  talk  15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond in greater detail but have you read The Times article? This is a major news source that gives credence to the rumor. There are others too I believe but I can't remember off the top of my head. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? The Times "article" is an excerpt from Kitty Kelley's book.  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

True but it is under the heading "article archive." Hence a major news source giving credence to the rumor. Not that said rumor is the only reason she belongs in the article.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by WP:SILENCE. It certainly does not corroborate your "radio silence" argument earlier. I believe she is notable. She wasn't merely a staff member for Bush. She was above and beyond that as is noted by the news stories on her and the influence she has on the H.W. as is noted through other quotes from notable people. The rumors deserve to mentioned even if it is noted that they were only rumors and were never substantiated or confirmed (and at least once vehemently denied). This is so because of the longstanding nature of the Fitz-Bush rumors. Without at least some mention of Fitzgerald this article is lacking NPOV.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, as repeatedly stated, the policy that requires some mention of Fitzgerald is NPOV.

"You seem to think that since only two editors have expressed opinions against this content that there is some chance it is appropriate. It's not; you may need more time (and more editors telling you) in order to hear it, but this material is simply not appropriate." - I also don't think this is a valid argument or one even worth mentioning but I would love to get some other views on this.

Also, I'd like to get your rebuttal to this argument I gave above . . . "We do not record "major news" but rather encyclopedic content." - True Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. To quote from WP:NOTNEWS . . . "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As established by reliable sources, Fitzgerald was an enduring news story over a number of years. This isn't an attempt to add a news story. This is an attempt to add content on a person of enduring notability in Bush's life.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I will leave the answer to this for others to provide, since you aren't hearing me.  Frank  |  talk  19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT . . . "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it." - It seems you are misrepresenting the policy as it certainly doesn't corroborate your point. You certainly can't be saying that 2 people is consensus. Also, I don't think there is anyway anything could possibly be even considered as having happened a "long" time after anything. Also, I'm not "refusing to acknowledge others' input." In fact I'm encouraging it. I would love to hear from some more editors other than you two. If another couple editors agreed with you all I would happily concede the argument. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the rules a little better before you try to school others on them.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'll restate here, the sources are all just statements of rumor. The subject of the rumors isn't notable, there's no reliable source stating anything ever happened, and even if it did, it would have to be shown to be sufficiently notable in the grand scheme of the subject's life to merit inclusion. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is mischaracterizing the argument. I will respond in greater detail later.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, I saw some mention of this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents, so I'll try to add my two cents as a disinterested observer. I think adding these rumors and innuendos violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. Certain affairs, like that of Grover Cleveland and Maria Halpin, have been well documented by scholarly sources (and somewhat acknowledged by Cleveland himself). These merit inclusion. Others, like the one alleged here, have not been seriously documented and have certainly not been acknowledged by Bush. They should be banished to the realm of blogs and scandal-sheets. Coemgenus 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  She merits inclusion for more then rumors of the affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not gossip column or tabloid. This rumor is irrelevant and should be excluded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not for slandering or insinuating affairs on the part of living people. In fact, it's not for that purpose for dead people. Ray^Talk 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Encouraged the break-up of Yugoslavia

november 1990 he pressured U.S. congress to pass foreign appropriations law for cutting all credit and aid to yugoslavia. the law also demanded that if any republic of yugoslavia wanted further US aid, it had to brake away from yugoslavia. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

[1], [2] 188.2.169.209 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Family

I suggest adding a family tree starting at least with his father. Also, does he have any great-grandchildren? Considering the ages of his grandchildren, I'd have to consider that likely.I also would like the page to include his son the other George Bush.Don't Be Evil (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The family tree is on here: Bush family Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.96.85.192, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Feb. 15, 2011 former President George H W Bush received a Medal of Freedom the nation's highest civilian honor.

198.96.85.192 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Scray (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Political figure

I do not see why the lead should not describe GHWB as a "political figure" if we do so in articles like the one for Mitt Romney.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because Bush was a president and Romney was/is not. Consistency across presidential articles is key.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Romney was a governor and a presidential candidate. Why is he labelled by Wikipedia as a "political figure" but GHWB should not be? That seems inconsistent, especially given that your rule would work in favor of the Barack Obama article if he runs against Romney.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss Romney's article you should do so on his talkpage and not here.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is it okay to talk about other presidents here, but not talk about other presidential candidates here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For consistencies sake, presidential biographies do not lead like this. Its not my rule, its the general way that the articles have been written. If you don't like the way its written in the Romney article, then revert there. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not verbatim the same as other articles for presidents. Why is this particular aspect important? Do you think it's disparaging in some way, or has negative connotations?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are oviously trying to be pointy, given you recent comments at the Romney page. Please keep your displeasure there are try not to disrupt this page because of it.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The present GHWB article earlier today referred to him as a "politician" in the lead. It was not I, but another editor from the Romney page, who removed it. I am questioning that pointy removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not in on the Romney discussion and could care less. What I'm concerned with is this presidential biography and the consistency across the project. "Politician" was added to this article about a week ago, and should have ben removed. When it was, you reinserted it, twice, even though you seem to have stated that it should not have been in the Romney article.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Focussing on this article, why is this particular aspect important? Do you think it's disparaging in some way, or has negative connotations?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency relates to other articles. Can't we focus on this one? In any event, there are many things about this article that are different from the other president articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is about this article, and how it relates to other presidential articles. I said constancy, but how about neutrality as well?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I tend to agree that characterizing GHWB as "political" in the lead is not a neutral characterization. It certainly doesn't really add any neutral information beyond what's already in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I kinda figured you were fishing for the word neutral, thats why I added it, but I am in no way taking any position on the Romney debate.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have been agreed NOT to characterize Bush as a 'political' figure, but it has been readded. Should it not be deleted again? Rodchen (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 131.94.186.20, 8 April 2011

Please Remove Footnote 11 because the link posted does not lead to an active url. It is a false citation that is used within the first several chapters covering George H. W. Bush's domestic policy. Please use a proper citation.

131.94.186.20 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Wayback machine's 2009 archive copy. Encarta pulled all of their encyclopedic info offline, but it's definitely still a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

In the First Term section of Bush's Vice-Presidency, there are repeated references to his "aids". These should be changed to "aides". Ta, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.14.93 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 17 April 2011

Done - thanks for pointing that out. -- Scray (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion: Where's the Broccoli?

Why can't I find anything about the Broccoli incident on this site? There isn't a page for it nor is there mention of the truckloads of Broccoli that were driven to the White House in response to Bush's famous "I'm the President now and I'm not gonna eat any more Broccoli" quote. The Broccoli was later donated to a Food Bank and Bush had to confess Broccoli sales had risen 10%

[Details about the incident are in this archived L. A. Times article.

Edit suggestion: supposedly and Bush-Clinton friendship working with the Tsunami

I have two requests. First, remove the word 'supposedly' dealing with the assassination attempt. Given all the evidence, there is no debate about it being real.

Second, there should be something written up regarding Bush's friendship with Bill Clinton and their work on behalf of the Tsunami and Katrina victims. Rodchen (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made the first change, as "supposedly" is a classic weasel word. The second part, though, is up to you. If you think such a section should be added, you'll need to do the research, write it up, and add it. Once you become confirmed (happens automatically after 4 days and 10 edits to non-protected pages), you can add it directly; if you want to get it in before that, add it here with a new edit request and someone can insert it for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush on the Anglican Church in North America

Former President George H. W. Bush is the most known pro-life Episcopalian in the United States and he also agrees with orthodox Anglicanism in the issue of homosexuality, so it would be interesting to find out if he already expressed any opinion or desire to join the newly created Anglican Church in North America, who is more in tune with the mainstream Church of England in these controversial issues. If he accepted to join the Anglican Church in North America it certainly would be a incentive for others disaffectioned Episcopalians to join it, since the Episcopal Church is facing a most likely exclusion from the Anglican Communion for their support for abortion and non-celibate gay clergy.85.240.18.162 (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Golf

This article is in Category:World Golf Hall of Fame inductees, but there is no mention of golf in the article. Should there not be? Interesting articles here here and here (the last one even comments, "A search of Mr. Bush's Wikipedia page did not turn up one mention of golf!"). --Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Years

• 1948-1951: the article only mentions 'Bush moved his family to West Texas.' What else did he do besides moving for 3 years (politcally and professionally?
• 1958-1964: 'so Bush moved the company from Midland, Texas...' and 'continued serving as president of the company until 1964', during which exact time period was he president (and founder as well?) of the company (he owned?)?
• 1964: 'Bush served as Chairman of the Republican Party for Harris County, Texas in 1964' which political activities was he ivolved, before 1964 - he became interested in a political career overnight? I would be very happy if someone could provide the missing information. Hoffmansk 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

Edit request from 98.236.111.99, 4 August 2011

He was not an actor/director

98.236.111.99 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And I cannot find on the page where it says that he was. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add historical entry to GHWB presidency in BLP.

Please add the fact that the cold war ended under GHWB presidency in his BLP, as this is an historical event that should be mentioned in this article. Please also add citation for GHWB being called George Bush Sr., as this is an inaccurate statement, at best. You may change it to the senior George Bush, but GHWB Sr. is erroneous and should be redacted. Thank you Why is this BLP locked down from other editors constructively editing it. Afterall, most editors can rollback or undo edits that are not correct. 65.8.150.136 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

CIA Officer

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y153/SollyMack/PresJfkBush.gif

George H.W. Bush was an agency officer during his time with Zapata Oil, which was not illegal back then prior to laws later that made it illegal to own a business or run a front on domestic soil if you worked for the government. Pretty common back then amongst intell employees, expected even sometimes of them if they had significant social status. This has been denied for a very long time by him, but the National Archives has this doc along with at least one instance of Hoover writing in the margins of something else identifying that a certain quote from G.H.W. Bush as being that of a CIA Officer by that name. And not someone else with a slightly similar name. Military background. Wealthy, politically-connected family. Lots of connections in the South. Makes sense he'd have gone that route and later be chosen as DCI. The Bush family itself has a similar history of denying the grandfather's well-established connections to one of Hitler’s primary financiers. It isn’t the misdeeds that get you, it's the lying and cover-up. So the unauthorized autobiography probably has a lot more legit information than people realize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.115.103 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 November 2011

The second sentence in section 7.1, Presidential Library, states clearly that,

"This tenth presidential library... contains the presidential and vice-presidential papers of Bush and the vice-presidential papers of Dan Quayle."

This just looks like a goof. 98.90.98.246 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Specifically which part? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2012

In the 1980 presidential campaign section, please change the following section "The two men agreed to a debate in the state, organized by the Nashua Telegraph, but paid for by the Reagan campaign. Reagan invited the other four candidates as well, but Bush refused to debate them, and eventually they left.[21]" to "The two men agreed to a one on one debate in the state, organized by the Nashua Telegraph, but paid for by the Reagan campaign. At the last minute Reagan invited the other four candidates as well, and when the Nashua Telegraph refused to allow them to debate Bush stated that he had no opinion as to whether the other candidates should be included, that the decision should be made by the Telegraph, a response that seemed weak to many voters.

Bush did not refuse to debate the other four candidates. This is an error. In fact, the reference [21] cited by the original article does not state that Bush refused to debate. Contemporary reporting on this incident which refers to the error may be found at http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19800306&id=p58rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PPwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6653,968102 William h stevenson (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)