Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Bush approval ratings

When the ratings were posted, they refer one back to http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm, which only shows the last four years of George Buh's presidency ratings. As you obviously used his whole presidency (2 terms), the link referring back to should have been http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm, which shows the proper ratings and numbers you used. Leaving a person to search for your original research is not kosher when you are saying you used one place, but it is in another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rknuthjr (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Bush's ranking in 2010 Siena poll of presidential historians

I recently added one sentence to the bottom of the intro citing Bush's ranking in a 2010 Siena poll of 238 presidential historians. Editor Myownworst removed it saying that it's too soon to include. I contend that if Siena allowed Bush to be ranked in 2010, then certainly 2 years LATER it has been plenty long enough. Bill Clinton has a similar sentence at the bottom of his intro. The Siena poll is cited elsewhere on Wikipedia and is the most recent survey of its kind. I don't know this for a fact but I suspect Myownworst doesn't like Bush's low ranking in the poll. However, stated in a neutral tone I firmly and vehemently argue that the most recent assessment of Bush's presidency is extremely relevant and must be included in the intro. Teddychan (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Teddychan

No matter how much time has passed, the poll is still from 2010. IMO, these type of polls are given too much weight. They are simply the opinions of the participates. So basically the danger is of this poll being given undue weight in the article. Also, I don't think it belongs in the Introduction. The Introduction is for giving an overall summary of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I just would emphasize that 1. the poll was of 238 presidential historians, not random people (do you personally know any presidential historians? 238 is a LOT) and 2. Bill Clinton's INTRODUCTION ends with "Since leaving office, Clinton has been highly rated in public opinion polls of U.S. Presidents." Would you want to remove this also? Or is it because 3+ years is still too soon? Teddychan (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Teddychan

I have a low opinion of polls, so I would remove that reference from the Bill Clinton article if I didn't believe consensus would be against me. Also, how many historians are presidential historians? Are the 238 polled a representative sample? SMP0328. (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of putting words in SMP0328's mouth, I think Teddychan is misunderstanding the point of the "too soon" argument. It doesn't really matter how many years have passed or what the date is NOW, if 2010 was too soon to get a "historic" view of the Bush presidency, then that 2010 viewpoint does not become any more or less valid as time passes. Adding the 2010 poll in 2012, it's still a 2010 poll. We would want something that was actually compiled at a later date. --LarryJeff (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

LarryJeff, so you're basically saying that Wkipedia editors are more qualified to decide when it's appropriate to rank a president than 238 people whose livelihoods are . . . documenting, researching and yes, evaluating presidents. Because otherwise, Siena would have excluded Bush from the poll. Quite arrogant in my opinion. The reference to the poll obviously would show the date. Are you also saying that Wikipedia readers are unable to decide for themselves whether a 2010 poll is or isn't relevant today?Teddychan (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Teddychan

Actually, I did not say any of that. Nor did I express an opinion on whether 2010 was too early to be relevant. What I said (specifically in response to your question whether "3+ years is still too soon") was if 2010 was too soon, then it would always be so and the 2010 poll—as it will continue to be a 2010 view—would not become more relevant just because it's now 2 years later (or, for that matter, if it were 200 years later). As for what Wikipedia editors are or are not qualified to decide, we (collectively) are absolutely qualified to decide what does and does not belong in the articles on Wikipedia. If that's arrogant, then so be it, but it's the way Wikipedia works. And, for the record, I actually agree with you that the poll is relevant enough to be given mention somewhere in the article. --LarryJeff (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Which it is. And has been. Since July 1, 2010 – the same day it was released. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Teddychan that the inclusion of the Siena poll results he proposed seems appropriate, especially given the similar mentions of the poll in other former presidents' entries.Gsbsmith (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm coming upon this discussion a bit too late, but It seems absurd that the poll wouldn't be included, considering about a dozen such polls are already included within Wikipedia, and there is even a special page that groups them all together with nice charts and everything. Siena Polls are well respected, and the 238 scholars are most likely all qualified (and certainly collectively qualified) to have their work cited by wikipedia. If not them, then who? The average wiki user/editor?! 74.111.58.202 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Tominrochester

Time to unlock this page?

Locking a page from edits should be a temporary measure. GWB isn't president any more. He is less relevant, and not the target of "haters" as the internet likes to call it.

They've moved on to other things and people. He's almost forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.48.95 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - If SP was lifted, the Vandalism would quickly start anew. There are still very strong feelings about Bush 43. SMP0328. (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The page is not locked, only limited to editing by new and anonymous editors. Given the low threshold to becoming an established user, the disruption is extremely minimal, compared to the possible WP:BLP issues this article will likely have to deal with. --JOJ ^Hutton 01:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to open the page to the readers; if they want gravitas, they can sign up to WP with an ID/pw. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Torture conviction

I can not edit the article myself because of some article protection. So please could someone add this to the article? I guess one or two sentence at the end of the article would be fine.

George W. Bush and his associates were found guilty of crimes of torture by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal [1],[2],[3]

Thank you. 62.201.209.16 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also [4], [5], [6], seems to be a separate event from the one in the article last year, but I'm not sure I have enough context yet to write something neutral myself. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

More sources [7] [8] [9] [10]. In Switzerland [11][12] [13] [14] [15] This may need to be a new article.USchick (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The recent news is now a problem in many articles, not just this one. I removed the pre-existing material from the Bush article because, even though it was mercifully short (the other articles had a lot more material), it was still misleading as to the power of this tribunal and its legitimacy, let alone the fact that the individuals were, of course, tried in absentia, even though that was not mentioned in the material. Worse still, someone added a war crimes conviction cat, which is simply unacceptable. These issues need considerably more discussion before any material can be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the Bush article is not the only article affected by these stories, I have opened a discussion at WP:BLPN on the issue as a whole so we can hopefully handle the matter in a consistent fashion across all of the articles. As an aside, the material I removed from the Bush article was a copyright violation on top of the other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ergo, Bias

Article is thus biased, and violates NPOV. The Canadians, Spanish and Malaysians among others share these sentiments. Article should reflect that reality.

Please mark this article as biased. --89.200.192.1 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite multitudes of reasoning, one editor continues a misinformation campaign. "The BLP policy is misused, if used to suppress and censor politically unpalatable fact." Exactly what is taking place here.

I repeat: As a result of this editors actions, this article is now biased. This article blatantly violates NPOV, avoiding views that are easy to review and held by many. --82.181.228.107 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing word

Second sentence of the second paragraph is missing a pronoun: "In response, announced the War on Terror." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.140.199 (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, anon! I have fixed it for you. Remember to sign your talk page comments, and consider getting an account so that you can do these edits yourself. Specs112 t c 17:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This part of this currently biased and non-NPOV article should mention the lies about weapons of mass destruction that Bush used as an excuse for the war. --82.181.228.107 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Invented statistics

In this edit, two "not in source" citations were removed. One to "27 federal appellate judgeships were blocked." Please provide a quotation from a source that verifies this. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit someone somewhere might think when the New York Times refers to "39 stupefying hours" that it did not refer to a filibuster. Someone, maybe. I rather think the nits being picked on that are absurd. I also provided a statistical analysis reliable source which should have disposed of the other nits. How do others feel at that point? I would note that I even had an editor call "Democatic-controlled" a "slur" when that is the exact usage from the New York Times. Cheers - can we stop this nit-picking, please? Collect (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your "statistical analysis," did not state that "27 federal appellate judgeships were blocked." I asked you to verify a specific fact that you implied you verified. Could you please verify it? Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Amnesty International urges arrest of former US President George W. Bush

On the October 12, 2011, Amnesty International urged Canadian authorities to arrest and either prosecute or extradite former US President George W. Bush for his role in torture on his visit to Canada on 20 October, 2011. “Canada is required by its international obligations to arrest and prosecute former President Bush given his responsibility for crimes under international law including torture,” said Susan Lee, Americas Director at Amnesty International.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/canada-urged-arrest-and-prosecute-george-w-bush-2011-10-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangawarra (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So? They have no legal powers to do so and I oppose any mentions of this in the main body. Especially when the government of Canada will oppose this move. ViriiK (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Small grammar error

And I can't edit the lede! Could someone fix this sentence: "Bush was elected president in 2000, becoming the fourth president to be elected despite receiving less popular votes nationwide than his opponent."

FEWER! Grumpy otter (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "Less popular votes" is grammatically incorrect. It needs to read "fewer popular votes".

Public assessment on leaving office

The section on Public Image and Perception has recently been changed from

Early in his presidency, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he had achieved the highest job approval rating of any modern American president, at 90%;^[355][356] but Bush left the White House as one of the most deeply unpopular presidents, second in unpopularity only to Richard Nixon.

to

Early in his presidency, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he had achieved the highest job approval rating of any modern American president, at 90%;^[355][356] but Bush left the White House as one of the most unpopular presidents since World War II with 34% approval, with only Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman also having final job approval Gallup poll ratings in the low 30s.

The first edit was to change "one of the most deeply unpopular presidents" to "one of the most unpopular presidents since World War II." Not sure that saying "since World War II" was really necessary, since the sentence already begins with "of any modern American president," ie, of any president since World War II.

The second couple of edits, though, are the real problem. Made with the editorial comment "per the actual Gallup poll article - we must not mislead folks as to the content of the sources cited," they changed "second in unpopularity only to Richard Nixon" to "with only Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman also having final job approval Gallup poll ratings in the low 30s." The original version is more succinct and makes for a much stronger statement. It better reflects the statement in the Telegraph piece, which reads, "With an approval rating of just 22 per cent, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, Mr Bush departs as the most unpopular president to leave office [after a term of normal length] since polling began." And it does not place undue weight on the line from the other source that says, "Bush joins Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman as presidents since the end of World War II whose final job approval ratings in office registered in the low 30s."

The graph that accompanies that line shows that while Truman and Carter did have approval ratings in the 30s, like Bush, Bush had a higher disapproval rating, giving him a higher net-negative approval rating than any president besides Nixon. Also, saying "with only Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman having final approval Gallup poll ratings in the low 30s" without mentioning Nixon at all also misses a large part of the picture, which was that Nixon had an even lower final approval rating (in the 20s! in the Gallup poll) than Carter, Truman, or Bush.

Bear in mind that the sentence is discussing unpopularity ("the most unpopular presidents"), not just "approval rating." So a higher net-negative is arguably a better measure of unpopularity than is approval alone. Dezastru (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The first rule of Wikipedia is to use what the sources say. Now what we want them to say. The claims made were SYNTH from several sources. His final Gallup number was cited as 34%. Thus using a different value would be misusing the reliable sources. And Gallup is the specific source for Truman and Carter being the other two lowest values - meaning that it is proper to use them when we cite that source. The stuff about Nixon is not in the Gallup source. As for defining "modern" - I find that using a specific time is far superior to using "modern" as I would expect madern to go back to post Spanish-American War. In short, my edit removed a bushel of SYNTH and relied on the exact wording of the source. If one does not like what the sources say, then do not edit Wikipedia -- that is how articles are written -- by using what the dang sources say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"The first rule of Wikipedia is to use what the sources say. Now what we want them to say."

Precisely. The source to which you refer says, "Only Richard Nixon was explicitly less popular at the time of his exit than Bush is today." And that is what the WP article has stated and should continue to state. Dezastru (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No section or paragraph detailing awards, honors, dedications, etc. received

Shouldn't there be a portion of the article which discusses some of the notable honors that have been bestowed upon the former president thus far throughout his career. For example, the honorary degree he received from Yale University or the under-construction George W. Bush Presidential Center being built at Southern Methodist University, just to point out two particular instances. Many articles on important political figures, especially that of presidents, appear to have such sections, so it might befitting forth is to be included here as well. Please discuss. Mrzubrow (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Add it with reliable sources. Collect (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay-- will do. Thanks! Mrzubrow (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

I've heard that Bush was part of the Neoconservatism movement in the United States, but unable to locate any journals supporting this information. Has anyone had the same issue? There are some individuals that believe this to be the case.

Twillisjr (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush Institute at SMU in Texas

We are just now watching past US president George W. Bush speaking (covered by FoxNews) about the new center now in operation for life and freedom. The George W. Bush Institute is non-political and pro-action. The "spectacular" building for the institute opens in April, 2013. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity

I think there should be a section reflecting the substanstial evidence that supports that G.W. Bush with his administration, initiated and presided over an illegal war in Iraq, and committed crimes against humanity. Such a section will highlight the basis of those accusations, to include but not limited to the following;

-The UN never approved the war in Iraq. Under international law, the Iraq war was illegal, and the perpetrators of an illegal war are war criminals. (Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says that any treaties signed by the United States becomes part of the supreme law of the land.)

-Most, if not all, of the evidence presented to the American people and to the UN to justify the invasion of Iraq proved false.

-During the Iraq war, many acts that are considered to be crimes against humnity were committed, most of which happened because of poor leadership and an indifference to these issues that led to poor or no oversight, such as;

-The torture and inhuman treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

-Executions without trial.

-Unlawful and indefinite detention without charges or trial.

-Indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilian populations.

-Systematic use of terror and threats by the U.S. military upon the civilian population.

-Inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, such as the willful denial of water, food, electricity, and medicines. (such as in

Tall Afar, Samarra, Fallujah, Najaf, and other areas)

-Reckless destruction of World Heritage Sites and the failure to adequately protect Iraqi national treasures from antiquity.

Patwinkle (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the substantial evidence to which you refer? Wikipedia articles are guided by principles outlined in WP:NOT, especially in the sections on WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTFORUM. Dezastru (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Iraq War was illegal according to the UN, to which we are also bound by domestic law. This is not evidence, it is documented fact. All the resolutions that define it as such can be easily sought online. The outline of the process that the US engaged in with the UN during the bid for approval to invade Iraq, along with the result, should not be hard to obtain. As far as evidence, which part in particular would you like to see evidence for? This is such a broad proposal and I expect people disagreeing to be a little more specific with which part.

In the meantime, some of the topics, such as the reference to "The torture and inhuman treatment of detainees in U.S. custody" have obvious examples that caught a lot of public attention, such as Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and Waterboarding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patwinkle (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to frame proposals within the boundaries of Wikipedia editing policy. You're being asked to provide substantial evidence in reliable sources for your proposals in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, all of which are fundamental policies. You may also want to review WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT (specifically the WP:SOAP section), WP:COAT and Wikipedia:Truth. Then you'll need to provide appropriate references in mainstream sources to support your proposed changes that indicate mainstream though or proportional minority views, all bearing in mind that the biography is about an individual, not about a government. Acroterion (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will read them again.Patwinkle (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

• In Canada [16] [17] [18]
• Malaysia [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
• Japan [27]
• CNN [28] [29]
• Other [30] [31] [32] USchick (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it is worth bothering to answer about the atrocities of the Saddam Hussein regime and the murders on 9/11. What was the United States of America to do? Wait for UN response? This article is not the place to discuss it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about Saddam Hussein. Bush has been charged with war crimes and the international community is calling for him to be tried in a court of law. Bush has canceled trips outside the US because he knows that he can be arrested and forced to stand trial. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] This is notable and supported by reliable sources. USchick (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to re-read those sources: the only place Bush has been "charged" is in Malaysia, and there not in a legally constituted court. You might also want to re-read WP:RS, since several of the links above fail WP:RS as user-generated content. An accurate description in line with BLP policy would be that several groups (notable ones?) and individuals have made statements urging charges. It's a long way from there to "has been charged with war crimes and the international community (what's that?) is calling for him to be tried in a court of law," not to mention that the statement itself is nonsense. Denunciations are not the same as legal charges. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He has been indicted in a Geneva court [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and in Canada. [43] You can see all the documents here. [44] USchick (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He has not been "indicted:" he has been accused by private citizens in Canada and Switzerland, with no action by courts in either place. Anybody in most nations may petition courts, but it has little meaning until prosecutors and courts act. Again, denunciations are not the same as legal charges. You would have an easier time making a case for inclusion if you didn't keep overstating the circumstances. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making this up, he was tried and convicted in one country, and criminal complaints were filed against him in two other countries with support from 60 human rights organizations who make up the international community. I'm sorry you don't think it's relevant, but international news organizations make it notable. USchick (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't assert that you're making it up, nor do I necessarily contend that the subject is not relevant, but you are misrepresenting what the sources state. There was no trial or conviction in any officially constituted court of law, nor is there any ongoing action on the part of prosecutors or courts. If you're going to propose edits to biographies, they need to be accurate representations of the sources. Acroterion (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources state that he was tried and convicted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. The sources also state that criminal complaints have been filed and the request for his trial is ongoing. There are legal opinions weighing in on both sides about what that means. In the meantime, international trips were canceled. There's enough information to make an unbiased statement with legal commentary. He doesn't have to be convicted before it becomes relevant. USchick (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is not generally regarded as a legitimate tribunal (and sources state as much), nor does it itself claim any ability to impose any legal sanction. You are consistently overstating the circumstances reported by the sources. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested in writing a preliminary statement that in your opinion is supported by the sources? USchick (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The burden is normally on the proposer to compose the proposed edit. I'll be glad to respond, and I would expect that other editors will offer their views. Acroterion (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree on what the sources support: 1. Criminal charges were filed against Bush in two countries. 2. He is being asked to stand trial for war crimes. 3. The human rights organizations that petitioned the courts represent the international community. I welcome additional input from other editors. USchick (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't support those statements. They do say 1) Court papers were filed by private citizens in Canada and Switzerland, petitioning courts and prosecutors to bring criminal charges. 2) Individuals and some organizations have demanded prosecution. 3) The human rights organizations represent themselves. They may claim that they represent an "international community," but the term means only what the authors of a given press release want it to mean. Nobody, least of all Wikipedia, has defined what the "international community" represents - the article is sourceless and tagged for a variety of problems. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, those arguements can be made in the article. Those points by themselves do not delitimize a very strong case that can be made against Bush and Co. Remember, the US ignored the UN, precisely because we had the power to do so. The US practically IS the prosecuting arm of the UN. If we want to ignore the law, that's in our power to do so. Nobody can stand up to us, militarily anyway. Our politics is such that we probably will never judge ourselves in our own court. That leaves the international body, and just like you said, those bodies may be ill defined, but if anything your arguement supports using those sources. Until such a definition becomes specified, they are as legitimate as they can be.Patwinkle (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In Switzerland:"Two rights groups issued what they called a preliminary indictment against former President George W. Bush on torture charges in Geneva on Monday, vowing that he would face a case against him wherever he traveled outside the United States. The 42-page document by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights and the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights" [45] [46]

"In February 2011, the Center for Constitutional Rights attempted to initiate criminal proceedings against Bush ahead of a scheduled visit to Switzerland. Bush cancelled the trip after news of the prosecution, and the apparent unwillingness of Swiss authorities to stop it, became known." [47] (last paragraph).

In Canada:"Amnesty International got the ball rolling last week, calling for Bush’s arrest for war crimes and torture." and "Amnesty International “submitted a memorandum to the Canadian authorities on 21 September 2011 that makes a substantial case for the former president’s legal responsibility for a series of human rights violations,” and a further submission has been made by Lawyers Against War (see here for the letter by Gail Davidson to the Crimes against Humanity & War Crimes Section of the government’s Citizenship and Immigration department). Furthermore, on September 29, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) submitted a 69-page page draft indictment to Attorney General Robert Nicholson, along with more than 4,000 pages of supporting material, setting forth the case against Bush for torture." [48]

These are criminal charges in two countries, not complaints from private individuals. USchick (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC) ______________

Ok, so I read all the wikipedia guidelines again this is is what I propose;

This president's time in office was mired by questions of the legality of the Iraq war, and by the tortures and inhumane treatment of POW's during this war. I think a characterization of this presidency should include a section devoted to addressing those issues; they are inseparable.

For content I'd like to include the following;

The UN counsel's refusal to authorize the invasion of Iraq was ignored. A prior resolution that the US claims covers the new invasion does not, according to various international lawyers and by Koffi Annan himself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0321/p05s01-woiq.html/(page)/

There have been a couple attempts by international legal bodies to bring charges of war crimes against Bush and several others.

http://rense.com/general38/belg.htm http://www.globalresearch.ca/kuala-lumpur-war-crimes-tribunal-bush-convicted-in-absentia-it-s-official-george-w-bush-is-a-war-criminal/30839

Bush himself takes responsibility for giving direct orders for torture in his book, and on TV.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/08/torture-george-bush http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308082.html

World view is an important factor in discussing this because a foreign war of the United States involves the whole world, directly or indirectly. Wikipedia is not for domestic consumption only, and although I believe there are plenty of people nationally that would also agree that such a section should exist, when taking world readership into account I suspect that proportion would rise significantly. I think this article should reflect all topics and issues relevant to this President, written equally from collective world view as well as a domestic one. .Patwinkle (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this article should reflect all topics and issues relevant to this President, written equally from collective world view as well as a domestic one. I totally agree. USchick (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In-depth discussions and paragraph-long mentions of the legality of waterboarding and of the war in Iraq are far outside the scope of an article about George W. Bush. I don't think it's a bad idea for us to include the fact that his use of torture was controversial and that the war in Iraq sparked an outrage, and even that the post-presidency trip to Switzerland was canceled. Beyond that... Anyway, this is a way more on-topic citation for Bush's trip getting called off. [49] Red Slash 01:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards "waterboarding"; It doesn't have to be in-depth. We are not discussing whether it happened or not. There is also no debate about whether waterboarding is torture. The only debate about that is on the US domestic political stage-a defacto process that is more about public perception than any practical or legal reality. Torture, where it matters out there in the battlefields of the world, is defined by international organizations, not the US. Otherwise there is no point in pretending that we are making an effort to protect US soldiers by expecting our enemies to follow such international guidelines.

I put forth a similar arguement about Iraq. Just because here in the US we feel we can curb blunt discussions about topics because it is politically sensitive should have no due weight on the factual presentation of how it is regarded on the international legal arena. UN Resolutions do matter. The simple fact that the US does not need to suffer consequences for her actions should not deter from presenting what was concluded as wrong in front of our global peers. If the UN approval of the Iraq war was of no importance we would not have gone through a substantial dance to try and win their blessing. It was only post facto that we shunned and minimised the UN decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patwinkle (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deficit chart

The deficit chart should not include 2009. That is part of the Obama administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.207.98 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, the first 19 days were part of the Bush Administration. Although, I don't know if that justifies having 2009 be part of that chart. SMP0328. (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The FY 2009 budget was arranged under George W Bush, not Obama. Cato Institute: "Don't Blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit ... The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" Mattccurtis (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Worst president

It's unfair that liberal historians can call bush one of the worst presidents in history and it's taken as fact by wikipedia and add it to his article it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling professional historians names such as "liberal" and referring to their assessment as "unfair" simply because you do not like it does not make it any less of a fact than it is. Joker123192 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

He was a president for the time (9/11) just like Obama is president for Financial Cliff. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The only "fact" that Wikipedia accepts is that some commentators/historians have described Bush as the worst etc. It's factual to say they have made these comments, because they demonstrably have made these comments. But the truth value of the comments themselves is not something that WP has any position on, one way or another, because such statements are totally subjective. This is not the place to have any sort of debate about whether he was the worst/best/whatever. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bush has said he does not give a damn what polls and historians have to say about his presidency Jimmy Carter's lead section does not have him listed as one of the worst presidents in history why should bush's be this is biased and needs to be removed. [anon]

 Done Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No. We don't disappear information from Wikipedia because we do not like or do not agree with the views of a majority of scholars. What is the evidence that the judgments presidential historians have made about Bush's presidency were driven by partisan political bias? Dezastru (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If any editor feels the Jimmy Carter article could be improved, the editor should discuss his or her proposals for that article on its talk page, not here. Dezastru (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not allow liberals to smear this good president's lead section historians do not chose who was good or bad presidents only history and the american people can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind Wikipedia's policies on edit wars. Consistent violations of the three revert rule could result in your editing privileges being removed. For now, until a consensus is reached, the longstanding text should be kept.

If you feel that President Carter's article is unacceptable, you should Be Bold and change it. But a shortage of relevant information on that page does not justify leaving out information on this one. Whether you agree or not, in all lists made from 2008 on have ranked Bush among the worst in history. This is not a debate about the merits of that; it is a verifiable fact that scholars have said he is one of the worst. If you can find a source to say that those scholars are "liberals", then perhaps you could add that the viewpoint is questionable, but it is very much relevant to the article. After leaving office, polls have shown that Americans are not much happier under Obama, so you can add that his favorability ratings have gone up since leaving office.

Whether or not President Bush "gives a damn what polls and historians have to say", does not make it any less relevant to the article. For any athlete, celebrity or politician, it is impossible to rank them as great or not great, but we can with 100% certainty say what pundits have agreed on. And from the most prestigious lists made, Bush has fallen into the bottom 10. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

MavsFan28: How exactly are you defining "prestigious" historians?

The Siena College studies cited are dubious references: (1) the first study cited was conducted in 2006, far before the end of Bush's second term; (2) the 2010 publication provides ZERO information regarding the study's methodology, sampling, etc.; (3) moreover, the survey distribution via email, is not a bias-neutral sampling method (survey conductors could theoretically pick and choose which respondents' surveys to include in the study). Considering all of these factors, I challenge the assumption that this reference is one that adequately reflects the totality of scholarly opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty.Owen92 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You have an whole section in this article about his ratings why does his lead section need it too lets take a vote on weather to keep one the worst presidents in history line in play or to remove it i say Remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead is summarizing the article and should include all notable facts of the article.TMCk (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NO this is a biased poll not a fact it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You say it's a "biased poll". Unless you clarify I must assume that you see the American people as biased against him and therefore it should be removed. If removed from the lead the section would need to be removed too, according to my statement above: (The lead is summarizing the article and should include all notable facts of the article.).
Please clarify.TMCk (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I myself do think that Republican politician articles in general on this site have biased viewpoints, but in regards to this particular sentence, I think its 100% justifiable. The general public perception of his presidency is very relevant to this article, as are the views of leading historians. His leadership during September 11th is mentioned in a later section, but it still deserves a mention in the lead. Even the fact that he was president is mentioned in a later section, but it should still be mentioned in the lead (of course). If you can find leading scholars who view his presidency as not horrible, then I would suggest adding that to the lead. But as of now, the general consensus on leading lists seems to rank him near the bottom, thus the sentence is warranted. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Lead Section reads quite well in its current protected form. It touches lightly on the subject of the public's perception of his job performance in the line that says, "Nationally, Bush was both one of the most popular and unpopular presidents in history, having received the highest recorded presidential approval ratings in the wake of 9/11, as well as one of the lowest approval ratings during the 2008 financial crisis.",and there is, as pointed out, a whole section about it later. Patwinkle (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I not saying the American people should not pick the best and worst presidents but historians from liberal colleges should not that's biased and should be removed.Edge4life42 (talk 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you confuse "liberal arts college" with liberal (in the American sense) in general (which the roman catholic church sure is not. (Just one point and example).TMCk (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And then we have this source, polling 415 historians. Hard to assume that the majority has a liberal bias.TMCk (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And even so it's called an "unscientific" poll (of historians,) the numbers of this poll are overwhelming.TMCk (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ergo, I see some due weight to include this opinion in the lead.TMCk (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You keep speaking about the historian polls as if their word is law as an american i should have the right to pick the best and worst Presidents not a bunch of biased pricks that's why the lead section needs to stay as it is right now.Edge4life42 (talk 11:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a piece of advice: using personal attacks doesn't advance, and could cause people to oppose, your argument. SMP0328. (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edge4life42, I appreciate your attempts to keep potentially biased information off of Wikipedia, but leading historian viewpoints are very important to the lead - especially when they unanimously have reached a consensus. The general public is not as educated as people with their Doctorate's degrees in history and political science, so we tend to hold weight with their opinions.

Since I'm assuming (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you're an Edge fan, let me give you this analogy: If I say Santino Marella is the best superstar ever, you probably wouldn't give my opinion much weight. But if Triple H, Jim Ross, Stone Cold and Vince McMahon call Edge one of the greatest superstars ever, we'd probably give their opinions weight, because this is a business they've studied and worked in extensively. And I would definitely add into his lead that he's considered one of the all-time greats.

The argument here isn't whether or not Bush was a great president, we could debate that forever without anyone being right or wrong as its all opinion-based. What we can say with 100% certainty is that leading historians have unanimously agreed that Bush is among the bottom 10 presidents in history. Years from now that opinion may change, a la Harry Truman, but for now its what they've agreed on and its very relevant to the lead of the article. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but for the record, Patwinkle's point about relevant information about his approval rating already being there is a good point as well. I do think leading historian opinions should be kept here, but I could see it being acceptable to have just that.MavsFan28 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

NO this has nothing to do with pro wrestling this is about saving an good president's lead section from biased polls it need to be removed.Edge4life42 (talk 11:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reasons to exclude are irrational, and the other editors here have sound reasoning for inclusion. So I undid what I consider a continued edit war by you. Stop it and get consensus here for removal. I notice this has been discussed before and it was decided to include. If you wish to have it removed, you need solid reasoning and not the aggressive manner you've been exhibiting. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edge4life42, the basic fact you're trying to remove is both true and relevant, so you're not going to get anywhere trying to remove it. Perhaps you could suggest (here on the talk page) a sensible edit to the wording that reflects your concerns without removing the fact entirely, and we could try and reach a compromise? Khendon (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's my compromise instead of this line "he is rated by scholars and historians as one of the worst president's in history" why not "His presidency is given low ratings by scholars and historians but in recent years it's improving." let's vote.Edge4life42 (talk 11:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so as the person who added the part about his favorability ratings improving since he's left office, let me reiterate that I think the sentence is both noteworthy and necessary to the lead. When there were arguments that it was a "liberal-motivated" sentence, I stood by it, because I think its fair. But the ever so slight change in the sentence does not sit well with me. Why was the wording changed and why were the sources changed? You mean to tell me that a 20 point increase in favorability/ approval is a "slight increase?" I do question the fairness that whoever made that edit brings to this discussion and subsequently will revert it back to the original wording. But I do like it where it is...now. MavsFan28 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose rewording the entry, or leaving it as it is now. But I would just like to ask what "favorability" ratings have to do with being rated 'one of the worse' presidents in US history by scholars and historians? It would seem the two aspects are not closely interrelated. One can like a person and still have the opinion that they did a bad job. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

They're certainly not the same thing, but for the most part they go hand-in-hand. The general public does not know Bush personally, so "liking" him is mostly based around their perception of his presidency. Of course that may not be 100% accurate, but no longer are there approval polls taken on him, thus its the best guide to finding a more recent concensus on his presidency. A rewording could be in order so long as the facts stated in the sentence (about historians perspective/ favorability rating) remain the same. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not time yet to judge he's presidency it's only been 3 years let's wait until the end of Obama's presidency to put one of the worst president in history in the lead section.Edge4life42 (talk 11:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree there - rightly or wrongly people are making that judgement now. What I would say is that "one of the worst presidents in history" is a reasonable interpretation and summary of the relevant sources... but it is an interpretation and summary, and quite a strikingly worded one. I'd be more comfortable if we could get across the relevant fact here without unduly softening it but without being quite so catchy. Unfortunately, what's in the article already is much better than anything I can think of. Khendon (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bush's presidency may look better as time goes on (I don't think so, but it's possible), but that's hardly relevant now, that's something we would have to deal with when it happens. What we have now is a group of scholars using a particular standard who think that Bush's is among the worst. If there's a similar group of scholars using a different standard, who think it was excellent, or good, or just fair, we should include that in the article as well. Considering the efficacy of the conservative/right-wing propaganda machine, if such an evaluation existed I'd have to think that it would be well-publicized and someone here would know about it. If any of the objectors know of such a study – of scholars, mind you, not of right-wing pundits – then it's fair that it be reported in the article as well. In the meantime, though, including the cited studied is legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"What we have now is a group of scholars using a particular standard who think that Bush's is among the worst." Well, no. Not really. I can tell you haven't looked at the article we have on this very subject. Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States Bush's aggregate ranking is 34 out of 44. That puts him at the low end of the scale, to be sure. But it's not "the worst" by any measure, and it's a real stretch (or a POV push) to try to say he's "among the worst". The data simply doesn't back up the statement. Belchfire-TALK 05:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If we could just stick to the facts here without taking any side as to whether he was a great, good, bad, or awful president it would really help. Thanks. But I do think that being ranked in the bottom 10 of 44 is absolutely considered among the worst. Anyone who has an aggregate ranking shaded in red is considered among the worst. Fair or not, that's how his presidency is perceived.MavsFan28 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This "worst ever" stuff looks like a blatant BLP violation... except that there are quotes of him commenting on it, so he was aware of that viewpoint. We have to be careful about this kind of stuff, though. One could make the case that Buchanan was the worst ever. Or Grant. Or Harding. Or Carter. Or any number of them. It's basically too early to tell. So be vewwy, vewwy careful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It never said "the worst ever" but "one of the worst". There is a big difference. TMCk (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Take it out. It doesn't belong here, and it doesn't belong on any other president's page. Best and worst are subjective judgements. Textbook worst used to be Taft, but even his article doesn't need such a designation. Pure POVcrap. --Nouniquenames 04:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the "one of the worst presidents" claims. Basically, it's simply not adhering to WP:NPOV, and as we are an encyclopedia, we do not allow POV claims on any article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be zapped. "One of the worst" can be applied by any political enemy. I'm thinking about a President whose country was asleep at the switch when an enemy attacked; who dragged his country into a war they didn't want; who was accused of illegal incarcerations; who was never able to fix the sagging economy by any of his various programs; and who was pilloried by his political opponents. Sound familiar? Am I talking about "one of the worst"? That depends on whether you consider FDR to be "one of the worst". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The current wording as I write this is Although his presidency has been rated among the worst by scholars and the general public, his favorability ratings in public opinion surveys have improved somewhat since he left office in 2009 - I think the first half is good now, and there's nothing wrong with the second half on its own - but the overall effect of the two phrases conjoined (was bad/now better) is to give the impression that since he left office he's become pretty well regarded which I don't think is supported. Khendon (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well his favorability rating is actually higher than Obama's approval, whereas when Obama took office in 2009, he was ahead of Bush in those numbers by at least 30 percentage points. So I think its a fair wording. Also, there have been too many edits for me to pinpoint which user is doing this, but whoever it is - please stop changing the wording and removing the legitimate sources. Saying his favorability ratings improved "slightly" or "somewhat" is a clear bias in what has been a 20 point rise in those numbers. While I disagree completely with the users who suggest saying his presidency is ranked among the worst is invalid, I'm now forced to agree with their claims that there is a clear "anti" bias here as well. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First, this article is not about Obama. If you have issues with Obama's article, please discuss them on the Talk page for the Obama article, not here.

Second, presidential job approval ratings are not the same as favorability ratings. Jimmy Carter, for example, is considered as having had a rather unsatisfactory presidency. However, the public has generally regarded him favorably (as a person) in his post-presidency years, in large measure because of the humanitarian work he has done and his high regard in the international community (winning the Nobel peace prize and working for decades monitoring elections, for example). When scholars are ranking presidencies, they are evaluating how the presidents performed in their jobs as president. When public opinion surveys are conducted specifically asking about favorability, there is no requirement that respondents limit their impressions to how the people being considered performed in their jobs as president; respondents are free to answer on whatever basis they feel appropriate. So a person participating in a survey might think a president is a really fine person and give him a high favorability rating but feel that he is doing (or did) a poor job as president and rate his presidency poorly.

Third, Edge4life42's main complaint has been that only the American public as a whole, not scholars, should be judging how well a president has performed as president. Accordingly, several of us have changed the text in the lede to indicate that Bush's presidency has been rated poorly by both scholars and the American public. I moved the Wikilink to the article on Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States out of the lede and to a See Also link in the body of the article because the sentence in the lede is discussing both judgments by scholars and judgments by the American public while the Historical rankings article discusses only judgments by scholars.

Fourth, the lede should reflect material that is covered in greater detail in the body of the article; it should not state information that is not discussed further in the rest of the article. Various public opinion suveys have found that Bush's favorability ratings have risen about 5 to 10 percentage points since he has left office. (See a list of them at the webpage I cited in the article.) That is a "slight" improvement, as the article states.

Fifth, it is better to say "has been rated by scholars" than "is often rated by scholars" since there have not been that many surveys of scholars. In a few decades, "is often rated by scholars" might be reasonable, but it is too soon for that as yet.

Sixth, for those who are complaining about the use of "the worst" in the article, that phrasing comes directly from sources. Examples are: "Americans still rate George W. Bush among the worst presidents, though their views have become more positive in the three years since he left office" (from Gallup, February 2012, cited in the article); "Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents ... President George W. Bush is near the bottom of the heap in the latest survey of historians on presidential leadership" (from US News & World Report, February 2009, not cited in the article). We are not saying in the Wikipedia narrative voice that Bush's presidency was one of the worst. We are saying that scholars and the public have judged his presidency as one of the worst. It is a well-sourced statement, and inclusion of the statement in the article is not a BLP violation. For these reasons, I am reverting your latest edit. Dezastru (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I didn't mention anything about the Obama article. I used the polling as a way to show that saying Bush's numbers improved "slightly" or "somewhat" is completely disregarding the facts. Improving by anywhere from 20 to 40 percentage points is not a slight improvement. Like I said, the two rankings are not the exact same, but they can go hand in hand. Jimmy Carter's favorability is a relative 50/50 split and he is rated as an average president (per the polls we use for Bush), so that example would seemingly suggest they go hand in hand. But like I said, I'm not saying they're the same thing, they are both equally relevant to the lead though. Most polls show a larger lead than that. By that logic, one could argue that his presidency is viewed as a success because if you Google "George W Bush great president" there are plenty of results. I find the original wording much better and less biased than this version. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

Because of the ongoing edit war over this dispute, the article has been locked for one week. Please resolve this dispute within that time so that regular editing of this article can resume. SMP0328. (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: It's quite rare that an article gets fully protected when there is one warring against several.TMCk (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the result was the same: the article was being pulled back and forth between two dueling versions. SMP0328. (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The poll on 415 historians can't be used. That poll was taken in 2005 and should not be considered. How could these historians rate his term as president so many years before it was over? It's a snapshot poll on his presidency, it's doesn't consider the entire picture.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2012

Although his presidency has been rated among the worst by scholars and the general public, his favorability ratings in public opinion surveys have improved since he left office in 2009. 69.113.119.11 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC) ya think a citation is needed and please dont quote msnbc

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template..--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Childhood to Midlife POV

Born in New Haven and "raised" in Midland and Houston? "Raised" should come out unless Massachusetts and Connecticut are added. Since when does "raising" a child mean: "where he lived from ages 3-13"? Since when does "raising" a child end when he/she is 13? Bush went off to Massachusetts/Connecticut at 13, where he spent 10 months per year until he was 23. The text on this page supports a narrative that doesn't match where he was "raised." This is not to mention the family summers, which were spent in Maine. Apparently he had a "Maine" driver's license! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.32.133.230 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't explained how this is POV. It seems that you are claiming that this section part of the article is inaccurate, but wouldn't make it POV. SMP0328. (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The erroneous POV insinuates that Bush is a native of Texas, that Texas is the main/most important dimension of his background, and that other places he lived were thus not important in his process of personal formation. The problematic POV supports the myth that Bush is just "Texan" and attempts to cleanse his biography of reality. 24.42.23.176 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a POV issue as to what POV means for the purposes of Wikipedia. He spent 13/18ths of his childhood in Texas which does not make it a strech that he was raised there. We can add, and he spent his high school years 10/12th (or 5/6ths in New England). Also adding 2 months per year between age 14 and 18 mean he spent an additional six months in Texas. Mr. Bush clearly is Texan and clearly by all accounts spent 13.5 years or 75% of his formative years in Texas.Bipalabras (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The above post is inaccurate. He wasn't in Texas two months per year from 14-18. From when he was born until after he was married, George W. Bush spent summers, holidays, family gathers, weddings, etc., not in Texas but at the family home in Maine. Until Prescott died in 1972 (when George was 26) the Bush family was in Maine for Thanksgivings, Easters, and Christmas(not in Texas). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_compound) In reality George W was in Texas about 9 months per year from age 2-13. He was there hardly at all from 13-27. That's important as ethnic, social, and linguistic identity are forged during puberty. For this reason no one in the Bush family (including his parents and grandparents, brothers or his sister--all sent to the Northeast for school/college) has a Texan accent or is "Texan" in a cultural sense. Laura Bush and their children are Texan and have that accent. Yes, the verb "raised" here is a POV issue -- it's the kind of mythologizing one would expect on campaign propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.172.92 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever dude, this is a tiny detail and could go either way. But why don't you source, cite and suggest a rewritten timeline sort of 'raised' statement(s) and we can reach consensus on the wording here.Bipalabras (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hacking

This material, which I removed, was added earlier this day:

In February 2013, media reported that a hacker using the name Guccifer had infiltrated the AOL account of Dorothy Bush Koch. As a result of this breach, documents, including a George W. Bush self-portrait, were distributed throughout the internet.

This material IMO is trivia. GWB's relation to this story is incidental and nothing in the story suggests he was substantively harmed. This is why I moved the above material to this thread. SMP0328. (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum

From The New York Times: [50] "For Bush, a Day to Bask in Texas Sun" at the meeting of presidents at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. A paragraph on this would be a fitting ending section to this Wikipedia article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a nuclear madman

My edit that just got reverted was to bring some balance to the nuclear war issue. It's rather un-NPOV to state that he went around discarding nuclear treaties, without also noting that he reduced nuclear tensions. This was by reducing nuclear weapons patrols at a much greater rate than SSBN numbers were reduced. If we should point to any actual "reset" with Russia it would be in September 2001, and not eight years later. Hcobb (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

When a source does not specifically back a claim in a BLP, the claim fails to meet Wikipedia policy. In the case given, the source did not back the claim as worded at all. Collect (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection not deserved

This man does not deserve an article on Wikipedia that is semi-protected, it should be open for all kinds of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.54.173 (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Which is preciely why this BLP needs protections from "all kinds of editing". Collect (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the requirements for obtaining an account with the ability to edit semi protected articles is so lenient, that I don't know why Wikipedia doesn't require someone to create an account in order to edit. JOJ ^Hutton 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not nominated

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp According to this site the timeline for his Nobel Prize nomination was off and therefore his nomination was a fluke.117.213.4.123 (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Nobel

Worst President part 2

Here we go again calling him one of the worst presidents in history is biased and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Need to be mindful of BLP rules here. You cannot just go calling someone the worst or the best on mere opinion. Every president faces different problems and events. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"He was widely described by critics as the worst president in American history during his presidency because..." is not bias it is fact. "He was the worst president that ever was" is not fact and is bias. There is a difference there that matters. Any president or biography here should consider broad and popular criticisms of public figures whether positive or negative and report who stated such things. If he were widely reported as being the best president by X group that should be reported. I am sure some special interest considered him to be superior to other presidents and that could be included. However for the time being what we have citations for is that he was the worst and we should explore why and report on that. Perhaps a comparative as to why? For instance under his rule we have the largest deficit in history so economically he is the worst president. Bill Clinton left a historic surplus so economically he could be viewed as the best president. However if there are not cites for such statements they should not be here but rather should incubate on a userpage until we can agree on inclusion exclusion. Statements such as he was a good president or great clearly show an inherent bias in the enthusiasm for whitewashing the critical content and should be viewed suspiciously. Only those supporting fair wiki neutrality and considering the content of the article and its relations to citations should be considered.Valienteycaliente (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's too early to make such a judgment, and the biases of those making such commentaries have to be considered. If he was so lousy, how did he manage to get re-elected? Also, it would be tough to find anyone in the worthlessness neighborhood of the three clowns that held the office between Taylor and Lincoln. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not making a judgement. It is never too early to report actual judgements made in the press and in academia and in political science. That would violate the NPOV here.Bipalabras (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Selecting which ones to report is where the bias comes in. The political viewpoint of those academics must also be considered. I'm sure you could find many sources that say Obama is the worst President we've ever had. They can't both be right. Unless it's a tie - and unless they somehow consider guys like Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Grant, Harding, etc. to actually be better than Bush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point. We are not saying anyone is correct or incorrect. We are saying this is what is being said by these people. Whatever the Obama article says belongs on the Obama article talk page not here. That is a straw man argument.Bipalabras (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As a US president, there is so much written about George Bush that any comment of the form "he has been described as X" will almost certainly be a fact. I'm sure George Bush has been described many times as a best president ever too, and has probably also been described numerous times as the most (insert adjective of choice here) president ever too! I think the reason that this comment is biased is that it places undue emphasis on a certain point of view whilst ignoring others. Unnachamois (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's more of a matter that he was widely described as a worst president unlike some others which are generally described as good or bad, not best nor worst. Washington, FDR and Regan for example are widely described as the best, and although some have claimed they were bad, it's not common. I think that the consensus among many academians is that he was awful in general. However if some claimed he was great we should of course include that too, i.e. Planned Parenthood and HRC and NORML could have said he was the worst on women's rights, gay rights, and marijuana rights while the NRA, Focus on the Family, or the Petroleum Industry may have said he was among the best, others may have intermediate views. If president X has x% negative coverage, x% positive coverage, was commonly described as being a, b, and c. We should report on that for posterity's sake and to not be bias. This discussion again is about whether or not to include his negative press. That cannot be bias, it's just a question. If you want to add that he was great back it up with references and be bold and add it in. Perhaps under a new accolades and criticism section. It must be measured however, we cannot give undue weight to "he was the most awesome spectacular awesome sauce president ever" if that was stated only once in one publication in his home town. We should be consistent in our weight over the coverage as it actually has occurred. We should reference some of the studies on his coverage by the media that actually quantify this sort of thing. I remember reading something like 55%-60% negative coverage and 40-45% positive coverage, although this varied through his regime/administration.Bipalabras (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of issue that is always going to plague any real time encyclopedia. As others have said the it is almost guaranteed to find references for 'X was a good Y' and 'X was a bad Y' somewhere for any suitably high profile X. The problem is that this kind of question cannot be answered until X is a non emotional historical figure and even then personal bias could still be a problem. This leaves us in an impossible situation, clearly ignoring recent significant people is wrong but any judgement on such people is going to be tainted with bias and in the long term must be regarded as unreliable. There is no solution to this problem but it is something that should be considered before editing/reverting/ranting on someone of high profile who lived within a generation or two. Mtpaley (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As a further comment use the 'Benjamin Harrison' test (a US president I picked randomly). If you are editing articles about a recent president (X) and not about Benjamin Harrison then maybe you are biased and have strong emotional feelings about X and these are influencing your editing. Generally speaking Benjamin Harrison was just as important as X so if you are neutral you should spend as much time editing his page. Just my personal theory - Mtpaley (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

One solution is to define the scope of the survey in the article. Only 65 presidential historians and scholars were polled for that survey. Rewrite the sentence along the lines of

"In a recent survey, 65 presidential historians and scholars blah blah blah" Yes/No?Dkspartan1 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Specific ascription of opinions is generally superior to vague ascription of opinions. In the case at hand, stating that 65 were surveyed is a reasonable ascription. Collect (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A very interesting [51] column "He was smarter than most of you" going in depth concerning Liberal media bias. "Worst president" shows assumptions of Liberals in media and academia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

History Assessment Relevant?

The section seems rather ridiculous some areas like saying G.W. Bush ranks poorly in a poll by 238 "presidential scholars" who responds via "web" or mail. Is 238 even a large enough sample size? What was the criteria for being a "Presidential Scholar". Only certain types people even respond to these polls anyways via "web" or mail. So listings a sample size of 238 with no methodology being shown and only having people via web or mail respond not in person or even via phone to verify who they are seems fishy and POV of a verify particular type of person not "historians". I think this whole section was written by the people who made this study to get their names out there. 68.1.41.224 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

These are the same historian polls - with the same criteria - used to rank other presidents and are mentioned as such on the pages of the presidents who most frequently rank among either our greatest (Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, etc) and worst (Buchanan, Harding, Hoover, etc.). If future historical rankings that are released years from now do not rank Bush in the bottom 10 - as each and every one has done since the end of his presidency - then a case can be made that it is not necessary to mention this in the lead paragraph. But currently, Bush is ranked by most scholars as being on par with the likes of Buchanan and Fillmore near the bottom of the rankings.--Joker123192 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage amendment

I don't know why my previous edit was removed, as no explanation was given. But I thought I would come here to argue that considering the increasing relevance regarding the debate over same-sex marriage, and given the fact that previous presidents (Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, etc.) have articles which discussed their policy on civil rights issues such as slavery and segregation in the lead paragraphs, I think it is notable to include the policies that Bush promoted on the issue of same-sex marriage. Namely, his proposal to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It was a major part of his campaign platform in the 2004 presidential election, and was something that he strongly urged for Congress to enact during his presidency. If social security reform and immigration reform are mentioned as policies he promoted as president but never passed, then this policy that he also promoted is worthy of being mentioned as well. I invite the person who had my edit reverted with no legitimate explanation to argue why it shouldn't be included along with these other proposals, and why it is less relevant than them as well, especially considering its ongoing relevance today. --Joker123192 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

International Criminal Court

Seems that the article doesn't really discuss any of the fact and workings of the ICC as related to Bush and his cohorts, which has been slowly working these past 5-8 years to get Bush, Rumsfeld etc, convicted for Genocide. Of course since America is not signatory to the ICC, that will prove quite difficult. Two programs show on Al Jazeera and RT, (two channels I don't normally watch, but were recommended by a friend because they had good coverage of Syria) in the last 2 weeks discussed the side effects of action. It seems now that Bush and cohorts, can no travel to large parts of the world that are ICC signatories, and those countries that have reciprocal agreements. The ICC isn't even detailed in this article, but it is a simple fact, that if he stepped off the aeroplane tomorrow, in say France, he would be indicted for the biggies, like Torture and Genocide and a bundle of small ones. What does this article not reflect this fact? scope_creep (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit removal

This particular edit [52] was removed by Collect on basis that it was trivia. While I personally don't agree with the label, either way as per WP:Manual of Style/Trivia, material should not be removed from articles on the fact that it's considered trivia by a user. What is discouraged is actually a trivia section. Guidelines state that information in a trivia sections should be incorporated into relevant sections of an article, not that they be removed altogether. The edit in question touches on a long-running television series that according to creator's was heavily brought into existence because of George Bush and their frustration with him. They said that George Bush was inspiration for a lot of what went on in the series, even that there was an episode titled after Bush satirizing him. This was placed in the "image" section were parodying of George Bush is discussed, not in any trivia section. So I'm uncertain of why the removal and would like to incorporate it back on these basis. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree that it is trivia - instead, I'd say that it is entirely off-topic for this article. Either way, it doesn't remotely belong here. Write about it in the article on the series. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the comment "off-topic for this article." The article in question relates to miscellaneous subjects involving the living person's existence in the media. This material relates to just that and is not anything about Bush's personal life or another person entirely. If the article speaks on numerous different media topics that relate to George Bush, how is another media topic on George Bush off topic? And of the different media topics touched upon in the article, one of them is "image." The "image section" contains material that focuses on Bush's reputation, reception, and parodies. Information on a major TV show's conception as a result of Bush's policies as well as satirizing him is plenty relevant to that section. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is off-topic because this article isn't about the television series. The source you link (which only mentions GWB in passing) doesn't suggest that the series is a parody of GWB. Probably because it clearly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not biographically significant to the life of one George W. Bush that some other guy made a show after seeing him win an election. It is significant to that show, but not to one George W. Bush. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2013

<text>replace George W Bush picture with him wearing red necktie! His party was Red Republican...</text> MikeFeldman121 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Most Controversial Article

The Washington Post just cited researchers from Oxford University who have cited this as the most controversial article on Wikipedia -- ahead of topics like Muhammad and Jesus Christ.

I just thought that you'd all like to know. I'm not sure if this would be appropriate for a meta-entry about Wikipedia at some future date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.24.217 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible source

• Hook, Janet. "1988: the making of George W. Bush." Los Angeles Times at the Seattle Times. Monday, July 12, 2004.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

List of George W. Bush legislation and programs

Could someone have a look at this article and compare it to the list at Presidency of George W. Bush#Major Legislation? Both articles have very low traffic talk pages - I'm betting I'll get more eyes on it if I post here. The list of legislation article has a lot of missing entries - and some that are themselves missing from the Presidency article. The lists should match, in theory. Thanks for taking a look. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert by Richard_BB

It is suggested that these reverts have no good cause, and themselves have large neutral point of view issues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=571486562&oldid=571484197

Discussion of the changes in detail:

• Changed section title "Public approval and assessment" to "Public image and perception". The old title reflects the section. Image and perception are difficult to back up with references, while approval and assessment are easy to describe.
• Changed section title "Negative assessment by historians" to "Assessment by historians". The section only mentions negative assessments so it is remarkable enough to be highlighted.
• Changed section title "Negative foreign assessment and criticism" to "Foreign perceptions". The section only mentions negative assessments, more accuracy is helpful, and so it helps the reader in highlighting that fact.
• Removed an entire section about the "Crimes against humanity". It can hardly be believed that an article about GW Bush has such serious gaps as not to go into this topic. This is the main reason why these changes have neutral-point-of-view issues.
• Removed article from category["Crimes against humanity". Surely it will help navigating wikipedia if categories are added as needed.

Stephanwehner (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that all of the edits that I undid were all made by Stephanwehner one after another; I reverted them in one go back to the status quo, as I did not feel they were in the most neutral wording. The use of the term "war crime" is very, very contentious, and I do not believe that throwing that word around with only a couple of citations is what's best for this article. However, I'd love to hear what other editors have to say about Stephanwehner's additions. — Richard BB 08:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Social services and Social Security

Has anyone who edits this page read the book blacklisted back in 2004 by the Bush administration and literally pulled off the bookstore and library shelves that year. It has been republished and is on amazon.com. Title of the book is: THE LOOTING OF SOCIAL SECURITY by Allen W. Smith, Ph.D. This book lists sources that at least four Presidents and their administrations raided/looted/stole from social security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.246.120 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Article issues?

I haven't completely read the whole article yet. It's too long for me. I can see too many citations, but are they used to balance the article? --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

George Washington Bush disambiguation

George Washington Bush was NOT African-American, that line should be changed to non-white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.119.105 (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bush and Howard

George Bush had a very close relationship with John Howard. Much closer than any other leader in the world. A photo of Howard and Bush would acknowledge this. Bush didn't have much to do with Italy or Berlusconi, so why put a photo of Bush with him rather than a man who he invited to stay overnight at Prairie Chapel Ranch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anything at all about Bush's relationship with Berlusconi? HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

war on terror

[53] was he doing enough before 9/11 ? 124.248.191.82 (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

swhistler's Audio Recording

S. Whistler's audio recording is out of date and misleading as there is no recording of the controversy in the election between GW Bush and Al Gore, which is misleading to audiences needing the accessibility of audio. I ask that it be taken down as it is biased in its lack of evidence and can potentially mislead listeners. Theatian (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as there is no mention of Whistler in either the article, or the references. Even if there was, an audio recording cannot be "out of date" - it is, self-evidently, in-date, when it is recorded, which represents the opinion at the time. - Arjayay (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The request appears to refer to File:George W. Bush.ogg (linked at the top of the article page), recorded on May 22, 2012, based on this version of the article, which does contain mention of the 2000 election controversy. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Should a "Legacy" section be added?

If you take a look at articles of other past US presidents, such as JFK, LBJ, Nixon or Reagan, all of them have a "Legacy" section in their respective articles discussing their long-term impact, influence and/or achievements. Taking this consideration, I think that it's only fair that George W. Bush has such a section in this article as well. Obviously, their are people on both sides of the political spectrum who still have very strong feelings about his administration, and can debate whether or not Bush's overall impact was positive or negative. But objectively speaking, I think we can all agree that George W. Bush - for better or for worse - was one of the more consequential presidents in recent US history. The section can (and will) change and evolve over time, as historical perceptions of Bush himself change. But I think it would be appropriate to at least have a section now based on what we already know.--Joker123192 (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

" I think we can all agree that George W. Bush - for better or for worse - was one of the more consequential presidents in recent US history." Um, no. It doesn't matter whether we agree or not - what matters is whether sources can be cited for the claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"what matters is whether sources can be cited for the claim" Which they can be. When I stated "we can all agree", I was referring to the opinion of scholars, journalists, etc. and not just the Wikipedia community.--Joker123192 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheney says water boarding not torture

My recent edit was reverted because it is supposedly POV and supposedly not supported by the source. I disagree. First on the issue of whether or not it is POV. Just because Cheney said it doesn't make it POV. I am stating that there were two reasons that the Bush administration waterboarded. One) The did not classify the victims as combatants and therefore bypassed the Geneva Convention (as mentioned in the article) and Two) they did not believe that waterboarding constituted torture (not mentioned at all!!!!). If you google "Cheney waterboarding not torture" you can find multiple instances where Cheney says waterboarding is not torture. Indeed the source I was using currently in the WP article quotes Cheney as saying "The United States is a country that takes human rights seriously. We do not torture - it's against our laws and against our values. " Further it goes on to say "The program is run by highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law." How is this different from what I said. Cheney believes that highly trained professionals can waterboard because the way they do it does not constitute torture. The article if it does not mention that the Bush administration did not believe waterboarding to be torture, it is sorely lacking in this regard. This source [54] can be added and this one too [55]. Glennconti (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read Orwell? You may well find that investing time in reading him will reward you handsomely with a good nose for detecting doublespeak. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have faith in human beings and have studied psychology. You apparently prefer to believe Cheney was evil and knowingly broke laws and behaved contrary to American values. If so why was he not prosecuted. He truly believed that waterboarding was not torture and was legal; this allowed him to proceed. And is the reason, he and other of the Bush administration were not prosecuted. Glennconti (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The way through here is fairly simple: Report what reliable sources say. We do not have reliable sources for what Cheney believed. We have reliable sources for what Cheney said. Cheney did not say "highly trained professionals can waterboard because the way they do it does not constitute torture". He said two separate things: "We do not torture" (whomever "we" might be) and "The program is run by highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law." This does not say that Cheney did not believe waterboarding is not torture. It does not imply the opposite. It says "we" do not torture. It says those running the program "understand" their "obligations" under the law. Are those obligations to not carry out actions they believe to be torture? Perhaps their obligations ate to follow orders in such a way that their beliefs are irrelevant. Perhaps their understanding of their obligations are to recognize it as torture, do it anyway and expose themselves to possible punishment for same. Perhaps... hell, who knows? Not us, that's who. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The "we" was a pronoun connected to the United States. Here [56] Cheney says specifically enhanced interrogation including waterboarding was not torture and was legal. Glennconti (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC) And here [57] and here [58] too. Glennconti (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

lede edit made on 4 March

[59] removed material which had been in the lead for a very long period of time which balanced his recent increase in favourability with the "scholar" poll that he was a horrid president. NPOV pretty much requires that we balance things in BLPs and I see no reason given for that removal at all. Collect (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As a painter

His paintings have been getting some media attention lately[60]. We should probably include it. Just look at the article about Putin for comparison.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

49 percent reference in lede

Collect has been insisting that the fact that George W. Bush's favorability rating in 2013 stood at 49% be included in the lede paragraph. This is despite the fact that nearly every single presidential article (ie Reagan, Clinton, etc.) includes such specific numbers in the section of presidential polling, rather than in the lede paragraph. There is a reason for this: Favorability ratings of former presidents tend to go up or down each time a new poll is conducted. Every poll is different, and to cite only one statistic in the lede paragraph would be inappropriate. Unless Collect would like to explain why he believes it is so important to include this specific poll number in the lede paragraph, especially when there are many polls out there with different number on President Bush,(ie After the Gallup poll, CNN had him at a slightly lower number while Fox had him at a slightly higher number) I see no reason why these edits are necessary.--Joker123192 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Joker. Undue emphasis on a single, arbitrary point of measurement for the lede. We don't mention any other specific polling statistics numbers in the lede for this article, why is a single measurement from 2013 so much more noteworthy? Also, the sources cited refer to both job approval and favorability, only one of which was 49%. Better to leave a general statement that the public's view of Bush has improved. Dezastru (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

First 0 it is improper to attack any editor via section title. Second, the Gallup poll has been used in many reliable sources, and is the latest figure available until sometime later this year -- the other pollsters do not run a comparable survey. Cheers -- but the only possible reason for censoring that figure is pretty evident -- to avoid the simple fact that GWB is far more popular now than he had been, and that the increase is indeed "substantial." Collect (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede says "although as with most former presidents, Bush has been viewed more favorably by the public since leaving office." Pretty sure it's not "avoiding" or "censoring" anything important. And as it has been said before, there is no need for the editorializing with "substantial" improvement. --Joker123192 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Polls should not be included in any Presidential article, because such inclusion is too POV-ish, except possibly when discussing a President's election campaign. A low poll number suggests a bad President and a high number a good President. Also, polls vary from each other and over time. SMP0328. (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Note the "presidential scholars" bit is ... a poll. The issue here is whether we can or ought to include that poll while neatly evading the Gallup poll on favourability entirely. So far it appears the "worst president poll" is allowed while general Gallup polls are disallowed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2014

Should the sentence "In December 2007, the United States entered its longest post–World War II recession, often referred to as the "Great Recession",... " be changed to "In the third quarter of 2008, the United States entered its longest post–World War II recession, often referred to as the "Great Recession", ..." to better align with this article that was referenced in that sentence? EstoyYo (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't think this quite fits an edit request, this is more general discussion of an edit, but I'll weigh in. I don't think so. This article's scope is the personage of Bush and covers a wide range of subject matters and essentially should be written in normal English. The linked article's scope is much narrower and is primarily a financial article and thus using quarters instead of months makes sense in that article. Cannolis (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The two articles are not really in conflict, since the Great Recession article refers to December 2007 beginnings in the U.S., but perhaps rather than saying "often referred to as the 'Great Recession'" it could be changed to something like "presaging the worldwide 'Great Recession'". Fat&Happy (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Worst president?

I really don't want to get into a political debate, but shouldn't the following quote, "Some pundits labeled Bush 'the worst president ever'" be deleted? It borders on being POV. And plus, its not that relevant. I mean, I'm sure there are some pundits out there who consider him a great president, and a couple of reliable sources in this regard would contradict with this sentence. Twyfan714 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

People have been fighting over that line a long time. I did make a change to this line:"although as with most former presidents, Bush has been viewed more favorably by the public since leaving office."It kind of holds a negative tone, the Bill Clinton article merely states:"Since leaving office, Clinton has been rated highly in public opinion polls of U.S. presidents."The approach in this article should be the same.Dkspartan1 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Twyfan, what pundits have called Bush the greatest president ever? Perhaps we can add that info for WP:BALASPS. Dezastru (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Dkspartan1, this article is about George W. Bush, not about Bill Clinton. If you don't agree with way the Bill Clinton article is written, you should try to revise that article. Many sources reporting on Bush's post-presidency favorability ratings have noted that the rise in his favorability ratings is typical for former presidents.[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] None of these sources, some of which have generally treated Bush fairly sympathetically, felt this information was too biased to mention. Our articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources report; in fact, excluding widely reported factual information because some editors feel it may be in some way negative about the subject is counter to the NPOV policy). Dezastru (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, his current support increase is far above the average for former presidents. That most see "an increase" is true, but most do not see an increase of 15% or more. Collect (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

%

Artist?

Bush has an article because he was President of the USA. Why does a hobby he has taken up after ceasing that role deserve a mention in the article. It has nothing to do with his notability. HiLo48 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It got significant coverage this week (including NYT, USAToday etc.) . Not unusual for former politicians to do so -- vide Churchill etc. Biographies frequently include such where the avocation gets major news coverage. Collect (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The commercial news media has a 24 hour news cycle for which it must generate content, serious or not. We don't. Bush taking up a new hobby seems little more than trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it is not as if it just came out yesterday that he was an artist. These three sources establish ongoing coverage. The coverage certainly warrants mention in the article. Go Phightins! 19:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your use of "certainly" is just a bit too certain. I say it's trivia and has nothing to do with why he has an article here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And it could be argued that the info about Barack Obama quitting smoking is just trivia. My point is that since this has been well documented for quite some time, then (in my view) it deserves inclusion. Twyfan714 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Twyfan. Dezastru (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree as well. The article for President Carter notes his various hobbies.Dkspartan1 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Including some he began after being president? I would love to see a really good reason for including this, rather than "I think it should be included" (which isn't a reason at all) and "Other articles show hobbies". What does it add to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

While this article predominantly discusses it, it is not solely about George W. Bush's presidency, which can be found here. Rather, this article is about George W. Bush, the person. This means that both his political career and his personal life are essential to this article. Thus, as long as something has been well-sourced and is notable, it can be included here. As discussed above, his painting is not something that sprang up this week; it has been in the news before. As to what does it add to the article: People may want to know more about Bush the person. Not everyone who comes to pages on presidents does so because they want to know more about their political careers. Twyfan714 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the more comprehensive response Twyfan714. It helps. I'm still concerned that this approach is leading to the inclusion of undue content, perhaps for other ex-presidents as well. If someone has an article here because of their (for example) famous scientific, media or sporting achievements, or almost anything else, I can't imagine us including details on them taking up a new, unrelated hobby in retirement. In fact, I've definitely seen such content rejected. Why do we do it for ex-presidents of the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Um -- when all the major news sources cover something in detail, it is rather hard to take "undue" seriously where the material is not particularly contentious. In fact we cover outside interests of authors, politicians, artists, and just about everyone except perhaps porn stars. As for it being "unrelated" perhaps you did not note that the exhibition is of protraits of world leaders whom Bush met? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but since this is not a breaking news story (it has been well documented in the past), it can be included. Now, the reason why ex-presidents get some stuff like this is because they are world famous. There are a lot of people in the world who don't know who Brad Pitt is for example, but a majority of people know the former presidents of the USA, and as a result, they are under more scrutiny both while in office, and after they leave office. People are more interested in what they are doing, how they are coping since leaving the White House, etc. As such, imo, it warrants inclusion here. Twyfan714 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is more than a hobby when the picture of Putin has so much coverage. It enters pop culture and politics. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

With Bill Clinton

FYI, (in case it become important to the Article, herein).
Headine-1: Bipartisanship: Former Presidents Bush, Clinton Sit Together at NCAA Title Game

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/07/bipartisanship-former-presidents-bush-clinton-sit-together-at-ncaa-title-game/

QUOTE: “Former first lady Laura Bush was also in attendance for the title game between Kentucky and Connecticut. Both former presidents are noted sports fans, and Bush, is a regular attendee at Texas sporting events.” [Good pictures.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, it appears to be the stuff of a daily newspaper - if and only if it becomes notable for more than a singe news cycle, then it might be usable. At this point - no. Collect (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Addressing drug use allegations

After being directed to do a web search for Pres. Bush's supposed drug use and finding an avalanche of articles (many on sites we'd usually accept for citation), I came to Wikipedia to find out whether it was a false allegation or likely truth. I was surprised to find no mention of it either way, so I did a search in the Talk archive; as of 2005, even the hardcore Bush fans agreed with including it and were helping fine-tune the wording as part of a large drug/alcohol section. Going from that to no mention whatsoever is a bit troubling... IMHO there should be a basic statement that debunks or confirms the allegations (as the one on his drinking does), as avoiding the issue entirely will give non-editors aware of it the impression that Wikipedia's being politically censored. I can't do much online at the moment, however, so the ball will have to be in someone else's court. —xyzzy 07:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Worst President

This is not fair not on one democratic president article do you see a worst president ranking this is bias and should not stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Might want to do your homework. First one I checked: James Buchanan. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Second and third checked: Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce. Did you do any checking? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did but i meant to say recent democratic presidents such as Jimmy Carter,Why does so many republican presidents articles have worst ranking it's bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Maybe they were. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the only "recent" President on the list is Bush II perhaps the bias is with you (or your ass)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the polls conducted by these "Historians" are liberal leaning I think it would be fair to have some conservative polls mention on Wikipedia and applied to democratic presidents articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Most of the polls conducted by these "Historians" are liberal leaning..." Cite for your assertion please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Edge4life42, removal of properly sourced material is usually seen as vandalism here. We don't care if a source is biased. We just care if it is a reliable source. We document all forms of bias here. Since the claim of "bias" is just your opinion, we don't care about it either. That content was properly sourced, so don't ever do that again. The next time you have a problem with sourced material, start a discussion first. If and when that discussion has resulted in a consensus for a change, only then can you make that change. Keep that in mind next time. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014

In the part that says he served in the national guard that should be changed because 1 when he ran against John Kerry,Mr Kerry had called George W Bush out on the fact that he didnt serve in Vietnam and that Kerry had,2 George himself admited that he did not serve in the vietnam war after Kerry had said that. DallasPotter97 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

He did not serve in Vietnam. He did serve in the National Guard, just not in Vietnam. What needs to be changed? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, consider citing a reliable source for verification purpose. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bush Finally Speaks to the Ultimate Wartime Sacrifice

• Bush Finally Speaks to the Ultimate Wartime Sacrifice archive.org/web/2008-05-15

"Bush actually played his last round of golf on October 13, 2003. This means that the reason he gave for quitting after the August 2003 U.N. bombing is dubious at best."Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Close enough. "At this point, what does it matter?" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOv

"while a 2013 History News Network poll of 64 historians showed that 35 of them — over half — rated his presidency as a failure"

This sentence was, I think, written with the intention of being subtly POV. What I mean is, the "over half" part is not necessary. Everyone with a working brain can see that 35 is more than 50 % of 64. The only possible reason for inserting those two words can be to emphasise that over half of the people asked thought he failed ("LOOK, MORE THAN HALF OF THEM! LOOK! FAAAAIL") - it serves no other purpose, and looks non-neutral. I hope I managed to explain what I mean, it might look like nitpicking, but I think it's really there.213.220.203.77 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I've removed that part.  NQ  talk 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

Insert a link for the wikipedia page for boarding schools in the first line of the third paragraph of the "Early Life and Education" session. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_school) 201.17.152.183 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No mention of his near death episode

Is there no mention of his near death episode with the pretzel?

On the other hand, Wikipedia can be biased as evidenced by the Talk:Barack Obama page where some people want to eliminate the Rezko incident from the article, an incident where President Obama was innocent. Sam Claus (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation in need of updating

The link for citation number 443, which links here, now leads to the siena website's 404 page. Suggesting a change to the link target, so that it directs the user to the same file on their new site, here. 98.209.140.42 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Only President with an MBA?

GWB was not the only president to have earned his MBA degree. John F Kennedy also received his MBA from Stanford Business School. They are the only two presidents to have received the degree. Please correct.

Although President Kennedy enrolled in the graduate school of business at Stanford, he did not actually graduate. He dropped out and as such did not receive an MBA degree. - NQ (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay?

[70] I was wondering if including land holdings would be relevant to the article? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we please add the

tag?--88.104.132.159 (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead is pretty substantial. What do you think is missing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I said it confusingly, but that's my point. It's too substantial and not summarative.

--88.104.137.105 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Error detected: Economic Policy

the first sentence of the Economic Policy section reads "Bush took office during a period of economic recession in the wake of the bursting of the Dot-com bubble."

This is patently untrue, as Bush took office in January, 2001 and the 2001 recession ran from March through November of that year, per NBER (http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan08bcdc_memo.html). Obviously, the economy was still in a period of growth when Bush took office. There was a period of time (especially during election years) when Republicans and their supporters tried to label the 2001 recession as the "Clinton Recession" and claimed that it began before Bush took office. The line quoted above smacks of that sort of partisan rhetoric.

Has anyone checked the cite given for the quote above? [Origins of the Crash: The Great Bubble and Its Undoing, Roger Lowenstein, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN 1-59420-003-3, ISBN 978-1-59420-003-8 page 114-115] to see if Lowenstein really said the Bush took office during a recession or if he cited any facts to support his assertion? --Slickjack (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2015

You may have to attach a link to where it says "Rick Perry" at Succeeded by located under "46th Governor of Texas" here's a screenshot.

http://i.imgur.com/xvvLn9q.png

Deergab (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Perry is linked one line above as Bush's lieutenant. It would be redundant to link twice. Regards, MavsFan28 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

Michael Johnson69ursister (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request was provided. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110515002136/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29109026_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29109026_ITM
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26131736/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Most Edited Article

This is apparently the most edited aritcle - [71]. I would say congratulations, but I suspect that half of those are vandalism edits, and the other half are reverting that vandalism. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090617221306/http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/NIHFedPolicy.asp to http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/NIHFedPolicy.asp
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-01-09/gates-bombs-away-in-memoir-and-how-the-green-lantern-drove-a-decision/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120112022139/http://census.al/Resources/Data/Census2011/Instat_print%20.pdf to http://census.al/Resources/Data/Census2011/Instat_print%20.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110426162034/http://www.questia.com:80/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008838303 to http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008838303

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mass Sourcing Issues

Okay, I'm going to straight up say this: The referencing in this article is in bad shape and needs to be fixed. As seen here, there are large number of dead links, and many others have connectivity issues. This should be fixed or this may have to be sent to GA Review. Will211|Chatter 03:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Iraq Invasion section

The Iraq Inquiry report is out today and has a number of things to say about Bush/The US approach. This may be of interest here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Declaration of reserve part of energy policies?

The declaration of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument should be in the section about environmental policies, not in that about energy policies. Please correct.

This issue appears to have been fixed It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Activities from 1974–1977

The article currently has an information gap from November 1974 (when Bush left the Air Force reserve) to 1977 (when Bush started Arbusto Energy). If anyone has access to one of Bush's biographies, it would be good to have that filled in. Even if it seems unremarkable ("Bush interned with XXX", "Bush practised his golf swing", etc.), it would be preferable to have even one sentence detailing his activities during that time than nothing at all. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)