Talk:George W. Bush

(see below)

Template:V0.5 Template:FAOL

The 2nd paragraph needs to be edited. Somebody has inserted vandalized text: "George likes moonlight walks on the southern beaches of Iraq. He is currently cheating on his wife with an Iraqi woman names Irani. There third child is expected to be born on july 5 2007. He is a bad president." ZuG 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is That Really Bushs Signature?

That Signature looks like a 4th grader. Is that really his?

• Reverted -Susanlesch 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

lol. im not sure. Randomfrenchie 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I looks more like a 3rd grader to me. Hello_mello_yello_jello 10:48, 10 march 2007 (UTC)

The original question was not in regards to the signature currently in the article, which is in fact GWB's signature. The question was referring to Image:Signaturebush.JPG, which has since been deleted as pure vandalism. auburnpilot talk 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

recent Brookings Institute report addition and my deletion

The reference to the BI report as some sort of rebuttal ("But...") to the NIE and as explanation for Bush's position ("Therefore...") is just wrong. (1) The BI report does not say what the insertion here says it "found". That is what the Rev. Moon's conservative Wash.Times editorial actually cited here claims is "implicit" in the BI report. (2) The NIE is much clearer, credible and aimed at a different point. (3) The Bush late 2006 position cited came before, not after and in consideration of the BI report. (4) for all these reasons, its a lame POV effort in my view.-JLSWiki 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Answer: This is your view. I am not attacking it, so don't attack mine Sasha best

wiretapping program?

shouldnt this page at least mention this somewhere wtih a link to a page, preferably in the criticism section? i mean it was a huge issue, still is, and it centers around him, seeing as how he funded it. and i didnt see anything about it. i personally think it deserves its own section, but it could fit under the critisism part as well.--Late Leo 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my last deletion

I deleted an exerpt about "in 2006 a National Intelligence Estimate (a consensus report of the heads of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies) asserted that the Iraq war had increased Islamic radicalism and worsened the terror threat." from War On Terror section, because information about it is already written in Iraq war section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of including that statement based on the fact that it is exactly the opposite of what President Bush himself claims. This makes it relevant. Wayne 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The neo-conservatives won't go for it. --Mechasam 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose your deletion. Best to include it in my opinion. Lixy 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Her point, as I understand it, is not that the information need be excluded, but rather that including it twice in the article may be a tad redundant. Information on the 2006 NIE is already included under the section on the Iraq War; does it really need to be in the section on the War on Terror too? Lordjeff06 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Body Counts

Just a question, why are the only Iraqi body counts mentioned are the Lancet survey one and the one done by the White house? Neither are proven to be fact and the Lancet one is ambiguously presented as fact in the article. I'm sure all the other agencies and media sources have a little say, such as the Iraq Body Count. And if this feature is not important, why is the Lancet survey mentioned at all?--64.75.187.195 08:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about this as well. In fact, I've added a reference to an analysis of the Lancet report done by IraqBodyCount.org twice so far, to indicate that the Lancet report is, in fact, disputed, and Addhoc has removed it both times. It seems to me that including references to multiple studies with differing results is more NPOV than to simply cite the Lancet report alone as somehow being incontrovertible fact. (For reference: Iraq Body Count analysis of Lancet article) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've reintroduced the Iraq Body Count link... Addhoc 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that the Lancet survey is, to date, the only survey to use scientific methods to estimate the toll so is arguably the most accurate even though having a large margin of error. The Iraq Body Count website only counts deaths reported by mainstream media and the website actually makes the comment "Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media". It is not only possible that the majority of civilian deaths are not reported in the media but there is also the documented habit of the Iraqi's themselves of burying their family members themselves and not reporting the deaths to authorities. Wayne 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet Survey suffers from severe selection bias in a way which serves to inflate the figure some unknown amount. The Iraq Body Count is a minimum, but the Lancet number is beyond a reasonable upper bound. Argyriou (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, that's your personal opinion, which isn't relevant. However, Bush's view on the survey is relevant, which is why the article contains his comment of "six hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just, it's not credible". Addhoc 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can supply sources for my assertion, but thinking about this a little more, the ones which Bush has responded to or authorized, are much more relevant to this article. I'm not sure how relevant it would be to link to a source validating Bush's statement on the Lancet count - that would seem to me to more properly belong in the Iraq War and The Lancet articles. So really, Wayne's comment is about as irrelevant as mine. However, 64... has a point; that whole paragraph is badly written. But I'm not terribly interested in entering the fever-swamp of this article. Argyriou (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth." --ElKevbo 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet used standard poll techniques and excluded Falujah and a few other towns to avoid too much bias to a high count. I expect their minimum would be very accurate even if the maximum is overstated. Perhaps mention should be made that the Iraq Body Count is the verifiable minimum while the Lancet is the possible maximum. I think they need to be included for comparison with the White House estimate and as the other world media use those three sources for their own estimates we need only include those three. It gives insight into factors affecting policy. Wayne 08:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I like to comment that when you read the Lancet "report" and do the math in your head, you should come to about 450ish per day killed. However in the first report they released, they claimed that 100K was killed which IBC also had problems with. Then the next year, the count jumped to 600K. Both reports claims that most victims were killed by artillery or airstrikes suggesting that the Coalition was responsible for it. The problem arises is that is the media engaging in a massive coverup despite the fact that the media has been harshly critical of the war in Iraq. They love the headline news when they get like "150 killed in market bombing", etc. As much as people want to go with Lancet, it's hard to believe it's factual. Especially when one of the members has participated in anti-war movements and calling to the end of the "Anglo-saxon empire". There's also other facts to be taken into consideration is that the United States and the rest of the coalition have used advanced methods of war whereas for example the Russians have used conventional methods in Chechyna. The 2 wars in Chechyna have killed over 400,000 people out of several million in the region and they're using outdated method such as carpet bombings over population centers which hasn't been done by the United States since Vietnam. Iraq Body Count while being anti-war has kept their methods strictly by reconfirming their casualty count according to media and morgue reports whereas Lancet is just guessing by assumption people's words are true. Even this 2005 image by the New York Times is pretty close to the IBC count in 2005 [1]. ViriiK 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Carpet bombing may not have been used but the coalition have used Fuel/Air explosives (Napalm was banned by the UN so they changed the formula to make it more efficient and then changed the name to Fuel/Air to get around the ban). What do South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia and Lithuania all have in common? They all have higher violent death rates than Iraq if the IBC is correct. Several US cities have higher murder rates than Iraq and last I heard there was no civil war there.

Is the media biased? In June 2006 the newspapers were full of the coalition attacks on the insurgents in Anbar province. Exactly 0 deaths were reported. An embedded reporter for Fox News reported 25 bombing raids on targets in civilian areas on January 9th 2007. No insurgent or civilian deaths were reported by any media from those raids. Wayne 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW. Of course the New York Times is close to the IBC count. That is probably where they got the numbers from. Of more interest is that that source is dated 18/12/2005 and in it Bush claims 30,000 dead. Last month (January 2007) Bush was asked how many Iraqi civilians had died so far. His reply? "around 30,000." Wayne 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another example of body count accuracy.

On March 6th between 8am and 3pm in the Baghdad Green Zone there were 17 incidents (10 bombs and 7 clashes with insurgents) not reported in any mainstream media. In 5 incidents a total of 16 deaths are confirmed, in 2 incidents deaths were reported but not counted and in 10 incidents only the incident was reported and casualties are unknown. This means none of the deaths are included in official counts because the death must be reported by the media to be included.

The Green Zone is the most secure area in Iraq so what are the numbers from areas more violent? The IBC is not "the minimum" as it is clear it is not so can't be used as a reliable source for minimum casualties by WP. The Lancet is obviously not accurate either but it is more reliable than the IBC and using the Lancet minimum should be acceptable NPOV. The only truely reliable source will be the coalition records that are currently secret so we will need to wait till they are available under FOI in how many years down the track that takes. Wayne 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be shortened

This article is too long (length and file size). Things taken from other articles (such as early life) can be shortened. Should improve article greatly. ~ UBeR 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the article to 119 kb, which is still probably too long... Addhoc 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The stinking lead needs to be trimmed. Phoenix2 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An article can be too long, but there can never be too much information. I'm sure most know that. The key is efficient organization and the spawning of new articles to bear the abundance of information. Whenever a section gets a little tight in the waist, just ship the excess to the sub-article. I've noticed that the section "Environmental Policy/Global Warming" is way too big for the main article. It's understandable though since the issue is getting more attention. I'm thinking much of that information can be shipped to Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration#Environment. "Early Life" could be trimmed and shipped (if not already copied) too. I think the creation of a separate article treating his role as Governor of Texas is entirely warranted. ~ Rollo44 10:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Bush Texan?

Being from Texas, I am disappointed by the lack of information on his early life in the article, which simply states that his family moved to Texas when he was two years old. Also, it does not include any information on his first venture into Texas politics as a Congressional representative from Texas. As I recall he was defeated for "not being Texan enough." I am sorry but I don't have much information on this, but I find it hard to believe he jumped straight from the oil industry into a governership. I am what you would call "a Texas Liberal" -- with deep roots -- and although Texas has always been a conservative state, we have in the past elected democratic governers, most notablely Anne Richards. However, through the efforts of Carl Rove, Tom Delay, and others the political liberal voice in Texas has been silenced. As i live abroad, I have found that the popular misconception is that George Bush is from Texas, which is untrue. Coming from an elitist background in New England and attending prep-school as well as university in the Ivy league, it is more than questionable that our president is "Texan." In fact, the information I have on the Bush family's ties to Texas is more reminiscent of the "carpet baggers" durning the time of Southern Reconstruction than the current display of genuine "Texan" values. An apt saying for this is "just because you own a ranch, doesn't make you a cowboy." I would appreciate a more thorough account on his family's history in Texas.85.50.32.205 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Chimpanzee

No mention of his likeness to a Chimpanzee can be found in the article. This has been on TV and newspaper with sufficient illustrations to fortify the fact. In my knowledge no other world leader has had that privilege so far (in history!), so it surely must be mentioned. Lets not let down his momma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.245.134 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

See Abraham Lincoln for other leaders that look like primates. --Cancan101 05:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Leaders that Look Like Primates El hombre de haha 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Hello all. Just curious, the lead in (opening paragraph, whatever the correct term may be) seems to be a bit sided in its choice of words. Examples; "one of the most controversial presidential elections" and "Following his re-election, Bush received heated condemnation, even from former allies, on these issues, as well as domestic issues such as his first-ever use of the veto power to veto federal funding of stem cell research, and the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina." It just seems that the choice of words is not neutral, and the latter doesn't have a source. Bear with me, I'm new here.

Ninjarrr 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No question that the 2nd lead-in paragraph does NOT have a NPOV. There are two facts more important than those given that will provide a much more "accurate" portrayal of GW' Presidency. They are 1) that our Constitution still works. We had a "close and controversial" change of power without bloodshed. Some may want to do away with the electorial college, but there's little doubt that if the popular vote were the deciding factor, it would have led to a major exposure of voter fraud in many states. Florida democrats weren't really interested in "counting all the votes." They wanted to ignore the military's abscentee ballots and only wanted recounts in selected populous precents that favored democrats. They wanted to steal the election. The electrial college provides an important check against such fraud in our major population centers. The second fact is that our judicioal system also worked. As originally intended by our Constitution, the SCOTUS prevented local courts from making a serious mistake. The fact is, if a President does anything useful, a significant number of people (not a majority) won't like him/her. Quite possibility, it would be better for Wiki to represent the POV of those things that make our Nation great, namely our Constitution. But if it's balance you want when discussing discussing the President of the United States, there are a large number personal attributes belonging to President Bush that provide great insight to his Presidency. Here's a clue: he's a very moral individual who pretty much does what he says he's going to do. On those points, he's been an exemplary President. Very few surprises. RJE - 11 Mar 2007 @ 2215

I disagree on the first example (hey, I think I wrote it) but agree slightly on the second. In the latter, "heated condemnation" seems too strong in an NPOV way. I just changed it to "increasing criticism" which I think is not only accurate but necessary to understand what has been happening in his second term. On the former, 2000 was definitely one of the most, if not the most, controversial elections (remember 1824?) and I think any student of Bush needs to know about that.....-JLSWiki 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my only comment would be that several reviewers have commented the lead section is slightly long. Accordingly, I would request that changes shorten this section. Thanks, Addhoc 16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph in the intro could be deleted entirely; it is already mentioned under "Domestic Perceptions" and I think it has more relevance there. The second and third paragraphs should probably be combined and shortened. I do think that a short paragraph about his life before he became president (such as his family, oil businesses and governorship) should be added though.--Mbc362 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the last paragraph of the intro section, however I won't object if anyone wants to reintroduce it. Addhoc 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that...maybe the summary sentance or two about approval ratings (post-9/11-current) could be left in....-JLSWiki 16:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ninjarrr, that first sentence almost makes it seem Bush was not Democratically elected. Compare this to the puff piece on Hilary Clinto and I think you begin to see why Wikipedia crediblity is suspected by many media outlets. User Anonyplus

I think Ninjarrr raises a valid concern regarding the "most controversial..." language. Therefore, I changed "one of the closest and most controversial elections in U.S. history" to "a close and controversial election", with relevant wikilinks intact. szyslak (t, c) 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been away and returning to this article, I have to say I am losing my faith in Wikipedia, at least for articles like this. I just dont see how some of you could think that "a close and controversial" election captures what happened in 2000, or how anyone could deny that it was "one of the most controversial" elections. This is just a small example. This one doesn't matter because a Matt Yeager recently decided to remove the whole lead because he did not like the most notable Bush facts. Another example: there is about as much space devoted here to what Bush has said about AIDs in Africa and his efforts (??) to "strenghten ties with Europe" as there is about Katrina and the war in Iraq (which, yes, have their own articles, but a reader cannot understand Bush presidency without understanding how dominated it was by the war in Iraq). Obviously, I am no Bush fan, but I have always tried to be accurate and balanced and let the facts speak for themselves. Just my opinion, but by removing a lot of inconvenient facts, Bush fans have turned this into a far more positive article on Bush than the facts dictate.-JLSWiki 03:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the FOX newspapers in Australia used the term "most controversial" and mainstream media here have no hesitation in calling the election stolen and repeating it often in op eds and TV documentaries even today. Stolen is going too far for a WP artical but watering the description of the election down to "close and controversial" is very POV. Wayne 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stolen? Did he rob it at gunpoint? Close and controversial is a good description of the election results, although the only reason it was controversial was becuase of the endless gripes and whining of Democrats. The election was very close, everything went through the proper channels, the Supreme Court cancelled an additional recount and Al Gore admited defeat. Where's the controversy? You are letting your hatred of the President taint the neutrality of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.209.232 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

"Almost completely irrelevant material"?

Recently, the bit about the Clear Skies Initiative was removed from the Environmental policy and global warming section for being "almsot completely irrelevant material." Now the section only talks about his actions toward global warming and creating a marine reserve. I understand that we can't include an in depth analysis of all his policies concerning the environment, but I do think that at least some of his other actions (such as the Clear Skies, drilling in ANWAR, Healthy Forests Initiative, etc) should be mentioned in the main article. As it stands now I feel it gives an incomplete view of his policies. As the removed section was written entirely by me, I thought it would be best to get some other opinions before I re-introduced it to the article. Your thoughts on the matter are greatly appreciated. --Mbc362 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think that the Clear Skies Initiative and ANWAR drilling, and the Healthy Forests Initiative are all fairly important issues that have gotten a fair amount of press, and it is certainly worth putting them in this article. Modify and improve sections if you do not like them but do not blindly delete them or blindly claim they are irrelevant. Cazort 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with both Mbc (the material was relevant, concise and necessary to understand more about Environmental issues under Bush than just global warming) and with Cazort (the material should not have been rather rudely removed in its entirety, at least not without discussion here where the need for just such information was recently discussed). Mbc - please do restore it at your earliest convenience.-155.212.231.42 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The same editor/edit removed the mention of Gore's Inconvenient Truth and I intend to put it back in - here is why: it was one sentance explaining why global warming was such a hot topic (huh) in 2006 which is why Bush was being challenged and was responding as stated in that next sentance, which the editor/edit left in place without this context.-155.212.231.42 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel the sentence about Gore's movie a bit too specific for this article. It would fit perfectly here though. The article is already quite long and definitely needs to be made more concise. If possible, I think we should work on introducing short paragraphs mentioning ANWAR, Healthy Forests, etc. while shortening the paragraphs already in this section. Also, we might try to condense the global warming bit into one large paragraph. Thoughts?--Mbc362 04:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Im going to agree with Mbc362. It clearly fits under the domestic policy article. The Bush article is too long and is trying to be shortened. This is a good way to do this. Perhaps put a very small amount of info on the Bush article and link to the main article of domestic policythuglas^talk|edits 04:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost completely irrelevant... well, look at it this way. This man was born and raised, received an education, served in the National Guard, ran for office and lost, owned the Texas Rangers, became governor, ran for president, won the closest election in over a century, did a certain number of domestic things, oversaw the beginning of the War on Terror, invaded Iraq, ran for re-election, won, preformed further domestic and foreign policy things, and got his face handed to him in the 2006 elections and is trying to recover. That's a pretty broad story, and unsurprisingly it takes a whole lot of kilobytes. We don't need things that didn't even make it out of committee clogging up space. Fact of the matter is, Clear Skies was NOT an especially enormous deal, and it wouldn't have been if Congress had passed or even voted on it. Roughly ten trillion (not an accurate guess) bills fail to make it out onto the House or Senate floor. The fact that this was one of Bush's countless pet projects that failed (as MBC suggested on my own talk page--very thoughtfully) doesn't really make it that relevant to him, I don't think. (Which is CERTAINLY not to say that we can't at least MENTION Clear Skies, and people who don't know what it is can check out the article...) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against re-adding a severely shortened piece about Clear Skies, but I do think it needs to be at least mentioned. Would something along the lines of

“ Announced by President Bush in 2002, the Clear Skies Initiative was aimed at amending the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through the use of emissions trading programs. Critics contended that it would have weakened the original legislation as it would have allowed higher levels of pollutants than were currently permitted. The initiative was introduced to Congress as the Clear Skies Act of 2003, but failed to make it out of committee. ”

be acceptable to everyone?--Mbc³⁶² 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm re-adding it, though trimmed a bit. Is that okay with you? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What you've re-added is perfect are far as I'm concerned. Thanks.--Mbc³⁶² 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bankruptcy legislation

This article, and the article Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration makes no mention of the major overhaul to the bankruptcy law that was passed early in Bush's presidency. I think this is a serious omission--this legislation is fairly significant; I'd be grateful if anyone wants to take the time to research and add this material. I may do it myself if I get around to it, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the topic and it might be easier for someone with more expertise to do it. Cazort 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bankruptcy related article should handle this Ecostaz 01:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine?

I see many alligations that he snorted cocaine in his twenties. I never quite understood if these allegations were founded or not, and I expected Wikipedia to answer this question, or at least to mention it. 83.67.217.254 23:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not deal with hearsay or rumors. I'd be willing to bet that none of your sources for these allegations are reputable. The only reason they haven't died down is because it's practically impossible to disprove them.--Mbc362 01:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles about Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lance Armstrong discuss unproven allegations against those men, being careful to point out that the allegations are thus far unproven. Seigenthaler controversy mentions an actually fictitious allegation against John Seigenthaler, Sr., which became notable because of the press coverage it received, and the resulting change in Wikipedia's policies for anonymous editors. Wikipedia is so large, there are exceptions to every rule about what Wikipedia "generally" does. --Teratornis 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are always exceptions...thats why I said "wikipedia generally does not" rather than "wikipedia does not." If the allegations are highly notable, yet unproven (as in the case with Armstrong) I have no problem with them being included. However, as of yet I haven't seen any convincing argument on how this accusation is notable enough to warrant inclusion.-- Mbc³⁶² 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be an asshole. He/she wasn't attacking, just bringing up a relevant, possible inclusion, and asking for rumor confirmation. So please, try being less angry and try reading more. 24.128.244.37 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not a good idea to go around calling other editors "an asshole." I was well aware that they weren't attacking Bush and was explaining why wikipedia does not include random rumors in its articles. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice, "try being less angry and try reading more" ?--Mbc362 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this guy released tapes of phone conversations between him and Mr. Bush talking about his drug problems in the past, it was a front-page story for about a week.70.108.225.66 13:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was about Bush trying weed, not cocaine. If I remember correctly Bush implied he had used weed once or twice but wouldn't admit it explicitly.--Mbc362 13:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The claims are not hearsay and rumour, just unproven. A lie could cause problems so George has to be very careful not to. His sister in law Sharon Bush claimed he used cocaine as did several of Bush's classmates at Yale. In 1998 when asked if he had used cocaine he replied "I could have passed the FBI background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," (meaning since 1983) however since Clinton the FBI now asks of any use since the age of 18 and when asked if he could pass this test he declined to answer. Wayne 12:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

According to The American Heritage Dictionary the definition of hearsay is "unverified information heard or received from another; a rumor," which is basically what you've just cited. I don't see any reason to include random, unproven claims against him that have little relevance to the article as a whole.-- Mbc³⁶² 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re: "I don't see any reason to include random, unproven claims"

This is rich. The Wiki article on Clinton includes every single right-wing nutcase allegation and unproven claim ever made against Clinton. And yet, the editors see fit to sanitize the Wiki Bush article and carefully airbrush anything negative out of the article. The Bush article (and, for that matter, the Clinton article) could well have been written by Karl Rove. Wiki is free to do whatever it wants (but please, don't try to claim to be an "unbiased" serious reference resource).

• Not to quibble, but please do not refer to Wikipedia as Wiki. That is like referring to George W. Bush as (just) "President," but actually worse, because while only one U.S. President holds office at a time, right now there are thousands of wikis. --Teratornis 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the controversy section that is entirely devoted George W. Bush. Believe me but it's there. If you have a problem regarding controversies in Bill Clinton's biography, make a controversy section regarding him and take all those that are controversial there. It's not that hard however it's up to you if you want to make it. ViriiK 11:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Summaries

the presidency and domestic policy sections should have summaries of the main articles.Rlevse 03:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They do. "Economic Policy", "Education and Health", etc are all part of "Domestic Policy" which in turn is part of Presidency. If you look at the table of contents it might be a little more clear to you.--Mbc362 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

cocain he did

"I will screw him in the ass!"

This quote from Bush has gotten a lot of play in the blogosphere recently. Since it's been published in a fairly reputable source (Haaretz [2]) it might be a good idea to include it and the surrounding controversy here. 76.97.207.71 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No wonder Saddam was hiding in the spider hole. Anyway, maybe Bush thought Osama was hiding in there and that way he could "smoke 'im out". Gzuckier 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!!! ok. sorry. had to laugh at that last spider-hole comment. :)

Languages

Doesn't George Bush speak other languages? I'm pretty certain that he speaks Spanish... Whatever. Captain Red Hook 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He knows just enough Spanish for him to attempt to speak it on occasion, as do many people from the Southwest US... and he's also fairly well known for sounding like an idiot when he speaks Spanish. I'm not convinced he speaks any language well, but it seems like he would have to pass college level courses in some language in order to have graduated. It wouldn't be completely out of line to say he speaks Spanish, though, any more than it would be to say he speaks English, since he seems to have difficulty with both languages sometimes. It may be related to his noted "decline in sentence-by-sentence speaking ability" which at least one doctor has said is indicative of cognitive impairment, so maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, none of us are getting younger. User:Pedant 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, you can hear his Spanish for yourself: "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010505.ram". (He gave a speech for Cinco de Maio, 2001, in English and Spanish.) Sadly, I'm at work, and I cannot confirm the link. Chip Unicorn 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes section?

Is this new section needed or even appropriate? A quote section seems to have the same drawbacks as a trivia section; neither are manageable and if the quote/trivia isn't important enough for inclusion in a paragraph, it isn't likely important enough to be mentioned anywhere. As it stands, there is only one quote which is referenced by a youtube video. Seems like something that should just be cut from the already long article. auburnpilot talk 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Addhoc 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, although I do believe Bush is not a very good president, he should not be subjected to any sort of prejudice in quotes not afforded to anyone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrroboto56 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Andover, Yale Cheerleader

I believe that there needs to be some mention from a NPOV that Bush was a cheerleader at both Andover and Yale.4.88.57.102 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "pep-team leader" would be a better term. I saw a picture of him "cheerleading", and he was just holding a megaphone.

Addition Needed To Also See

There needs to be a link back to former Bush roommate at Yale and U.S. Polish Ambassador Victor Ashe.4.88.57.102 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant how? ViriiK 10:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does down Down Syndrome redirect here?

When I type in Down Syndrome it redirecets to George Bush. WTF?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.178 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Apparently it was vandalized. Being that a lot of people hate Bush, I'm not surprised. Hatred is usually irrational, and can lead to vandalism and other crimes. CobraA1 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush is OK, but verboten for Al Gore

Seems leftists feel the Criticism of George W. Bush article is ok but they think the Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions page should be deleted. Feel free to chime in on the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions --Jayzel 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, nobody is talking about deleting Al_Gore_controversies. Did you forget to mention that? Gzuckier 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jiffypopmetaltop deleted the entire contents under the "Controversies" section of Al_Gore on March 9th at 18:39, fyi.--dbrashj

A controversy and a criticism are two seperate things as one can see from the Talk:Al_Gore_controversies where numerous issues are summarily deleted on the grounds that they are not "controversies". Perhaps you will join me in deleting Criticism of George W. Bush given that there is already . --Jayzel 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Leftists," Jayzel? There are quite a number of right-wing people who strongly disagree with the policies of the Bush administration. I can't see how people even consider him to be a conservative. I consider spending large amounts of cash on questionable things to be more an attribute of the left than the right. This administration seems to be more along the lines of communism for corporations than conservatism. That's not to say that I don't believe that the Bush and Gore articles shouldn't be balanced. As opinion is largely the basis for democracy it seems to me that a criticism section has a place in any article about an elected, unelected or somewhat elected public official.--24.67.212.211 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Leftists. Liberals are doing this, they are brain-washing you into believing George Bush is stupid in every way. Well, I propose that he is a wise leader. I don't care what you or America thinks. America's morals are going down, may I remind you. More stupid people hate Bush then wise ones. --69.67.230.109 03:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (for "An Inconvenient Truth") is a controversy, and rightly so. All Al Gore did was actually bring politics to the matter of Global Warming (although he said otherwise).Alexander Phipps 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad he brought politics to Global Warming, because I doubt politics would have paid much attention to the issue otherwise. --kizzle 04:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Al Gore being nominated for the peace prize is a controversy. Not because I thought he in any way deserved it, but because a lot of people who are far less deserving a nominated. Nominations for the peace prize are nothing special especially since so many people can nominate. A lot of silly names come up. It's not like the Academy Awards where you have 5 nominees. Perhaps most importantly, I've yet to see any real evidence that there was a great degree of controversy. Presemuably because most people, like me, realised it was basically nonsense to even think about it. Nil Einne 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no proper conclusion on this entire article. Though it's unlikely that Bush's approval ratings will be going up over the next year and a half, his legacy can only be put into perspective with the passage of time. Instead of ending with only the negative perceptions (domestic and foreign) of Bush, it should end with a proper summation; briefly mentioning his good and bad attributes. Reference the Richard Nixon article. 144.9.8.21 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)8:13 pm

Support by Military

"Bush has enjoyed strong support among Americans holding conservative views, as well as the military and those who support a military agenda." I added a citations needed tag - does anyone have poll numbers for this?

The Military Times conducts an annual poll of active duty servicemen. The last Poll they have is for Nov/Dec 2006.

35 percent said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved.

47 percent disagree with President Bush’s view that the war in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism, while 47% agree.

41 percent of the military agreed the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq

52 percent approve of the overall job President Bush is doing.

90% of respondants identified themselves as conservative while 10% identified with liberal views. The poll also asked which political party they supported. 46% Republican (down from 60% last year) 16% Democrat and 38% independant. Wayne 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The August 2006 Zogby poll covers conservative support.

Among both conservatives and those who consider themselves very conservative, 59% feel Bush is doing a good job, while 41% believe he is doing a bad job. (Overal 34% of the public support bush while 59% dissaprove.)

In a poll of WalMart shoppers (76% voted for Bush in 2004) 45% supported Bush policies. Wayne 13:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Length - critical

I know this has been discussed before, but this article has reached the breaking point in terms of length. It is now over 120 kilobytes long. As this is likely the most contentious article, I wanted to bring this here before I started chopping this article and merging some content in already established daughter articles. The Childhood to mid-life and Foreign policy sections seems to be the longest and all have pre-existing daughter articles; might be the place to start. All the other sections seem to be fairly succinct and to the point. Suggestions? auburnpilot talk 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the Iraq War section seems to me to be the most obvious remedy, that and the early life section. I've shortening the bit about global warming (though I do plan on adding some other material to the section later).--Mbc362 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a few people have already started; looks good so far. I just removed the "speach mishaps" section as basically irrelevant. auburnpilot talk 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'Bush Gropes German Chancellor at G-8 Summit'

There's no mention of GWB's surprise neck rub of Angela Merkel. I think there should be. Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.209.16.171 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2007.

There's no need for it to be included. The article is long enough as it is, it's impractical to include every piece of information relating to someone as high-profile as Bush is. On the other hand, an article called Controversy realting to George W Bush would be the longest article in wiki! Naysie 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

George Dubya Bush

At this date, the article introduces the president with how his name is played out in southern drawl. Is it not inappropriate to state this in his encyclopedic general introduction ? Should it not be, if at all, allocated to a subheading such as G.W.B. Trivia, much further down in the article ? --Free4It 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it is slightly directed away from the formality on the page of a current or former president it is a comedic touch that can keep a reader intrested. Keeping pages made up of only hard dry facts, He accomplished this he appointed him ect. ect. makes the article dry and makes it hard to digest. To increase the understanding of a topic (without needing to re-read it) is by having having different varieties of emotions that come in to play while reading.Soulofdragon 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One can write an engaging and interesting article based purely on facts without resorting to emotion. I don't think that's really the issue here, though. GWB's nickname is of considerably less importance than the rest of the top material for the article (it should summarize the high points, with the more minor details appearing below the ToC). A more appropriate place to put it would be in the section describing the part of his life when the moniker was first commonly used, if it is possible to determine when that was. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The name Dubya has been moved all over this article and in the end always ends up back in the intro. Its inclusions, however, is not for comedic fun. It is fact that Bush is referred to as Dubya. auburnpilot talk 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be a "fact" that the president is referred to as "dubya" by some; however, that is insufficient grounds for integrating it into his opening introduction. In the manner emphasized, it's clear dubya is a ridiculing [read not endearing] twist on his initial [if it were not understood, as such, then why is it even mentioned?]. Should the argument be one for humour, then that humour should be open ended and generally shared, in the same light, by all; not all consider dubya humourous [no small number consider it derogatory]. Which other American president's introduction has been equally spiked? --Free4It 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it denograding? He got that nickname from his parents, didn't he?

I call the president "Dubya" all the time and I don't consider it derogatory; I like him. It does seem like the fact of his nickname is certainly too trivial to make its way into any introductory paragraphs and perhaps anywhere in the article. It's the very height of trivia. Does the Bill Clinton article talk about his nickname "Bubba"? --Molon Labe 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Result of the GAR

George W. Bush

result:Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn)

This article was passed as a GA today, but I have major reservations with an (almost permanently) semi-protected article that is still hammered with vandalism passing GAC, as I don't see how it meets the "Stable" criteria. --PresN 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As a contributor to that article and one who frequently reverts vandalism on it, I share your reservations. I am puzzled as to why the article was promoted to GA status given its inherent instability. That the article is continuously semi-protected seems to be bona fide evidence of instability. --ElKevbo 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• 5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content. M3tal H3ad 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? --ElKevbo 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just see lots of vandalism, nothing like content instability. I think this should be Kept unless someone spots some other problem, though I do think this article could use summary style a bit more effectively in many sections to shorten them. Homestarmy 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that this article is a Good Article. I hope that it will become one at some point but it's not very well-written and is unstable, IMHO. --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true. No one should take it personally that this is an unstable article since this is essentially a current event and will constantly change over time. I can't wait until 2009-2010 when a degree of stability is assured and we can decide conclusively what the structure will be. It will one day be an excellent article in every way despite the controversial nature of its subject. ~ Rollo44 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am the one who reviewed it. My comments are available on its talk page. It has now been put under review due to the argument that criteria number 5 (stability), from WP:WIAGA was not met. If you read that guideline carefully, pages that are consistently protected due to vandalism are exempt from this guideline. I read all of the comments on the talk page and there were no ongoing edit wars, and the article as I reviewed it passed GA criteria. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw (Can I even do that?) While I disagree with the exemption, as it means that a lot of random people are going to see that a "good article" includes pictures of Bush as Hitler, and that he apparently is gay, Nja247 is correct that WP:WIAGA says that (rampant and nonstop) vandalism doesn't count as unstable, so I suppose I have to rescind my review nomination. GA it is. --PresN 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reply: Don't you think it is unfair to hold it against an article that it gets vandalised alot? I don't think we should give vandals this privilege.... I think you can withdraw your review, but before archiving it I think we should make sure that everyone had their say. / Fred-Chess 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but I do have an issue with the presidency and domestic policy sections not even have summaries fo the main articles. Rlevse 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep after citations are added for the {cn} tags and remove the fourth "paragraph" from the lead. M3tal H3ad 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep vandalism is not part of stability criteria. WikiNew 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep remarkably well-managed given the immense vandalism it faces. However, the Hurricane Katrina section should be moved after the September 11 section. Teemu08 01:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Speech mishaps

My addition of a Speech Mishap topic to my knowledge does not go against any policies(Including the WP:NOT, and WP:BLP). It is a comedic addition to the page and the world needs humor in all aspects of life, even politics. The quotes given by bush are not offensive as they are stated as being mishaps by George W. Bush.

I am petitioning here to document this topic because it is somthing people like to read about. It is in no way a negative attribute to the page for it is positive humor.Soulofdragon 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis 'Scooter' Libby convicted

Libby was convicted 6 March 2007 on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying during the leak investigation. Why is there no mention of the Plame affair in this article? James S. 23:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Added James S. 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree something should be added about Libby since the scandal is relevant and of immense interest to the public at the moment. I'm going to add a mention in the 2004 cabinet section. darksmiles22 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, try to get your facts straight before you put it in the article again, please. He wasn't in any way associated with Bush's cabinet; and he wasn't assistant to the President. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Lewis Libby wikiarticle he is mentioned as resigning from his position as assistant to the president. I just assumed, sorry; but still he should be mentioned somewhere in this article given his relevance to the Bush presidency. Even though he wasn't appointed by Bush he was pressured to resign and Andrew Card's resignation is in the appointments section so i figured it was ok for Libby's resignation to be put there too. darksmiles22 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead

I removed the following (as the second paragraph... yes, this was all ONE paragraph):

Bush was first elected in 2000, following a close and controversial presidential election. After a month of ballot recounts and court challenges in Florida, the Supreme Court ended the dispute with its final ruling of Bush v. Gore, that prevented further recounts due to inconsistencies between counties, which led to an electoral college victory to Bush. Eight months into Bush's presidency in 2001, nineteen hijackers sponsored by al-Qaeda carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. President Bush responded by announcing a "war on terrorism," which would become a central issue of his presidency. In early October 2001, he ordered the invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban as part of an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda. In March 2003, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction. Following the invasion of Iraq, Bush stated his policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. Running as a self-described "war president" in the midst of the Iraq war, Bush won re-election in 2004 after a heated general election campaign against Senator John Kerry in which President Bush's prosecution of the "war on terrorism" and the Iraq war became central issues.

The reason? Why is any of this info relevant? Perhaps a better way of saying it: why is this info any more relevant than the information following? Is the fact that there was controversy regarding Bush v Gore SO much more important that we displace information on Katrina, where Bush went to school, his Cabinet, etc. just to make room for it above everything else? I say no. This article in general is FAR too long. Duplicated information just has got to go. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Lead section:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article.

Of course the lead repeats information that appears in the rest of the article. If that's a problem for you, I suggest you go to Wikipedia talk:Lead section and propose a change. The lead is an integral part of any Wikipedia article, and this one doesn't go against any of our current practices. Go to WP:FAC sometime. Do you ever see someone object to an article's feature status because the lead repeats what's in the rest of the article? No, but you do see a lot of complaints about leads being too short. szyslak (t, c) 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And that lead, as written (no offense, I don't know who wrote it... probably quite a collaboration) is a pretty awful summary of George W. Bush. I suppose it's a fairly decent summary of his first term in office, but the article isn't about his first term, or even his presidency in general; it's about HIM. And those details aren't really important. It's not that there CAN'T be a good lead written about this article... it's just that whatever a good 2nd-4th paragraph on the GWB article might be, it sure as heck isn't that thing I quoted. (That's what I said, by the by... this lead summarizes seemingly randomly chosen parts from his first term and completely ignores the rest of the article.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a poorly written lead over no lead...You can't possibly believe that the sentence you've left is sufficient. I do think that at the very least, his actions in regard to the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and his governorship needs to be mentioned. -- Mbc362 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is true the lead had its faults as it evolved, but Yeager seems to prefer that nothing be said, rather than having a statement/summary of the most notable things about George W. Bush: his controversial election in 2000 after the historic Bush v. Gore decision, maybe his tax cuts, 9/11, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Katrina. These need context. Nothing he did before his presidency is so notable. If you don't like the facts, you cannot just delete them. -JLSWiki 02:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both sides to some extent. The lead should at least have a few sentences mentioning his life prior to the presidency, since being the governor of Texas isn't something that should be dismissed so easily. Even though he is notable for what he has done/is doing as President, he would already have been notable before his election to the Presidency as well. --Tom (talk - email) 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that I thought we should mention just that he was the governor of Texas, not go into any details about it. It serves to give the reader a sense of where he came from before he became president. -- Mbc³⁶² 06:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think a middle ground is a good idea. Listen, if we're going to mention SOME of the major things about GWB in the lead, we have to mention ALL of them -- birthdate, governor, controversially elected president, war on terror, invaded iraq, and then maybe that he beat John Kerry and screwed up Katrina. That's all I'm saying. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran and Korea

In the Foreign Policy section there is a whole subheading on North Korea but nothing on Iran. Surely Iran has played as big a role in the president's foreign policy as North Korea-although admittedly less than Afghanistan and Iraq-and deserves as much mention. There has been a lot of discussion over excessive length, though, so i am unsure of whether to add something on Iran or delete the part about North Korea. Does anyone have any thoughts?darksmiles22 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas Rangers

The Wall Street Journal had an article on its op-ed page taking about George Bush's background.

Two details that I think are important and not included in this article

First, the owner of the Texas Rangers wanted to sell the Rangers to Bush's group because he wanted to do be nice to VP/President Bush(41).

Second, Bush's main job with the Texas Rangers was to try and convince the people of Dallas/Arlington to pay for a new stadium for the team. The value of the Rangers went up significantly because of the new stadium.

Many of the partners agreed to give Bush a bigger share of the increase in value of the team because he had been so instramental in getting the taxpayer financed new stadium AND the fact that Bush's family was very well connected politically and Bush might be able to help the other partners later.

Bush was not a rich man until he used his political skills to approve a tax increase to support his baseball team.Whecht 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As long it respects NPOV rules and is in the proper category of his biography including citations, it should be appropriate. ViriiK 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments

Agreed. Hence why it has to follow proper encyclopedia style with no bias and keeping a strict NPOV. However if that fails, I'll be forced to remove it or others will do it for me. I'm not doing the job of writing it up. I do however propose that the person above write up the section and post it here in discussion for further review before posting it in the biography of George W. Bush. ViriiK 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article in question is from 9-28-1999 Wall Street Journal. I do not have the article with me now but I will look it up when I get the chance.206.212.89.240 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From the 9-28-1999 Wall Street Journal article

Mr. Bush's career with the Rangers baseball team, for example, is likely to come under intense scrutiny in the next 12 months. In 1989, when Mr. Bush brought together his investment group to buy the Rangers, the seller was Eddie Chiles, a longtime friend and supporter of President Bush. Mr. Chiles let the president's son and his group go to the head of the line. But in a pattern repeated through his business career, Mr. Bush's play did not quite make the grade. Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth stepped in, brokering a deal that brought Fort Worth financier Richard Rainwater together with the Bush group. Mr. Ueberroth's pitch to Mr. Rainwater was that he join the deal partly "out of respect" for President Bush, a source close to the negotiations told the New York Times. Mr. Bush ponied up $500,000 as his personal grubstake in the $86 million purchase. He later invested another $106,000, bringing his share to 1.8% of the team. For his organizing efforts, his new partners rewarded him with an additional 10% interest. They also named him a managing general partner, a move that assured Mr. Bush a series of benign cameos in the limelight as he ramped up a run for Texas governor. Mr. Bush kept a low profile as his new baseball partners aggressively and successfully lobbied for a special referendum in which the voters of Arlington, Texas, approved a sales-tax increase to cover the $135 million cost of a new stadium. Texas conservatives denounced the measure as "corporate welfare." Mr. Bush borrowed the $500,000 for his stake in the Rangers from United Bank of Midland, Texas, where he had served as a director from 1984 to 1986. Karen Hughes, a spokeswoman for Gov. Bush, declined to detail the terms of the loan. But she said it was a "fully collateralized, traditional loan, and fully paid off." In fact, the loan was paid off through the sale of stock Mr. Bush had been awarded in his only successful venture in the oil business, as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy Corp. Barely afloat in the tough oil market in the early 1980s, Mr. Bush joined Harken as a director in 1986. He was given 212,000 shares of Harken stock, worth about $500,000, or $2.50 a share, at the end of the year -- although he had no daily management responsibilities. He later acquired an additional 133,000 shares through special offerings to company directors, and he was paid between $42,000 and $120,000 a year for the next five years as a consultant. Prior to joining Harken, Mr. Bush's business record was not good. ... Harken viewed Mr. Bush's famous name as an important asset, oil industry executives close to the deal have said.

(My comments -- the article also mentions Osama bin Laden almost 2 years before 9-11) From the WSJ article (Salem bin Laden's half-brother, Osama bin Laden, has in recent years gained world-wide notoriety as a funder of fundamentalist terrorism, though he has reportedly broken with his family in Saudi Arabia).

(My comments again)

It appears I was wrong in saying that Bush's main job was to sell the tax increase for the new stadium. However, it is true that Bush did make his millions from the Rangers and he was given the ownership of the Rangers because his father was President.Whecht 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it best to have only a short mention of the Texas Rangers in this artical and have a separate page for the whole story. A page of it's own is warranted on the basis of the importance the deal had on Bush's career.

The question is what to name the Texas Ranger artical? Any suggestions?

I actually wrote a piece on this for a blog many years ago (see below). Unlike other Bush controversies that are still allegations (such as National Guard and drug use) all these claims are in the public domain and verifiable.

This can be a start as it is a basic outline and can be expanded quite considerably to make it more accurate:

"By the end of the 1980’s George Bush had a record of unsuccessful oil companies and a failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives behind him and was looking to improve his credentials. In 1989 he told Time Magazine in an interview “My biggest liability in Texas is the question, ‘What’s the boy ever done?’ He could be riding on daddy’s name”. Karl Rove told Bush that baseball was the way to make a name for himself. As Rove said at the time “It gives him exposure and gives him something that will be easily recalled by people”.

With this aim in mind a syndicate was organized in April of 1989 to buy a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team from close Bush family friend Eddie Chiles for $89 million and George was invited to join. Bush borrowed $500,000 to pay his share and became the managing partner (along with Edward Rose) on a $200,000 annual salary.

The Franchise was not willing to pay for a new stadium for the Texas Rangers, who were then playing in an old minor league stadium, so Bush began to lobby for a new stadium and threatened to relocate the team if public funds were not made available. In January 1991 with the help of Mayor Richard Green, who paid $150,000 for an advertising campaign to persuade the public to support it, they got approval for a new publicly funded stadium, at a cost of $193 million, to be financed by an increase in state sales tax of 0.5 cents. The Rangers franchise was to contribute $50 million to the cost, which it did through a $1 surcharge on tickets. The Rangers eventually received over $200 million in public subsidies. Three months later the Texas Legislature passed a bill giving the newly formed Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA) the power of eminent domain. The Rangers identified the land they wanted and made offers to the owners which were refused due to their being below market value, the ASFDA then acquired this land (13 acres of privately owned land additional to that required for the stadium) and handed it to the Rangers for future development with prices to be set by the courts at a later date, which in turn led to lawsuits over the acquisition. The landowners eventually won settlements of $22.2 million (legal costs and payment for the land) against the ASFDA which the Rangers refused to reimburse. By the end of 1991 Bush had increased his investment to $606,302.

In 1994 the new stadium opened as Bush began his campaign for Governor with Bush touting the opening as good for the taxpayers as well as the team. In November 1994 Bush was elected Governor of Texas and stood down from his position with the Rangers. In 1996 the Rangers made the playoffs for the first time in its history and attendances soared leading to the highest stadium revenues ($25.5 million) in baseball. Despite it being the norm for part of stadium revenues to be paid as rent to offset public subsidies, the ASFDA agreed to forgo this in favour of the Rangers retaining 100%. The franchise value had now increased to $173 million. In 1998 Tom Hicks purchased the Rangers for $250 million, the second highest purchase price ever for a Major League baseball team. Bush received a 10% bonus for making the sale, which gave him a return of $14.9 million for his investment. The following year the Rangers new owner agreed to pay the $22.2 million to cover the settlement in relation to the litigation over the eminent domain seizure in 1991. George Bush has denied any knowledge of the controversy surrounding the land deal but the Rangers previous president testified he had kept bush informed of it and Bush himself had previously acknowledged in a 1990 radio interview that acquiring this land was part of his original strategy.

George Bush’s return on the investment later led to even more controversy when, instead of paying the 36.9% tax on ordinary income for his 10% bonus Bush paid only the 20% capital gains tax that should only have applied to the returns on his original investment which the IRS declined to dispute." Wayne 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet

Could someone help me fix the Health And Human Services Secretary? Therequiembellishere 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretzel incident

Somebody has nominated to incorporate the text of George W. Bush's pretzel into this article, a move I feel would be unwise. While it is an interesting bit of historical trivia, much like Jimmy Carter's rabbit, it does not deserve a great deal of mention (if any) in a serious encyclopaedia article dealing with the President of the United States - it is far better as it stands now, as a simple "See also" link. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm against it hence why I removed the see also link. You can make a page regarding "silly incidents" of Presidencies or what not but not in this biography. It's not a helpful contribution to this biography whatsoever. You can make a small mention of it because of the fact we've had issues w/ See Also. For example suggestions for impeachment of George W. Bush. Inserting it now opens the flood gate so we have to keep it to a minimum. ViriiK 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue there is some merit to mention it either as a see also, or preferbaly as one line somewhere in the article, it's noteable enough IMHO as it continues to be a significant source of jokes etc about Bush. A reader who hasn't heard of the incident may come to this article trying to find out but will come away none the wiser. Nil Einne 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

permanent protection?

is this article going to be permanently protected? Is this really necessary how much vandalism occurs when few times protection is not on? How do we give people a chance when protection is never taken off? Maybe we can take the protection off, and have a banner saying, high vandalism target, check history to see if vandalism occured. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Permanent Supporters of Bush

Can we make a separate list of the supporters of Bush active on this page, so its easier to recognise them, although some of them use colors, I can see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.245.134 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Why no impeachment proceedings?

While President Clinton was busy being finacially responsible and cutting the national debt by unprecedented amounts, there was very little resistance to going full steam ahead on impeachment proceedings against him. Now that we are starting the 5th year of the costliest war on record, we should have more than enough ammunition to impeach the man who started it on a hunch. This is an open invitation to fellow wikis to please explain to me why this has not yet happened. 139.68.134.1 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Jon Allen

Please realise this is not a forum. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip, and do not remove other people's comments. 72.181.169.185 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To the anon editor: Please note, there is an entire article devoted to the Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Perhaps you will find some of the information you are seeking there. If you suggestions for improving that article please feel free to bring them up on the discussion page for that article. Cogswobble 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the directions to the movement. I should have been able to find it myself.

I reverted the impeachement thing. You need to discuss before you re-revert your edits. As for my argument ( Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox ). His wiki page is not to disparage him, its to provide information about him. Well I could go on a heated argument about user 72.181.169.185's edit, i'll just leave it at this. --Zrulli 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The section needs to be rewritten as a summary of the main article, not just a list of unconnected facts. Sentences such as "Others have cited additonal things" needs to be avoided as it doesn't actually give any new information, just that some people (not specified) think something else (again, not specified). Lastly, to be truely NPOV, the section also needs to briefly discuss opposition to his possible impeachment.-- Mbc³⁶² 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm done fighting it. We'll leave it up to the admins. --Zrulli 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War stuff

We already have an article specifically devoted to the relationship between George W. Bush and the Iraq War. Therefore, only the most important and relevant information (relevant to HIM, not to the world, not to the war, to HIM) should be placed on THIS page. I request that anyone looking to put any of those sentences back please place them here and defend why that sentence is specifically relevant to HIM. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to argue that the following needs to be reinserted:

• The bit about the NIE and other prewar intelligence. A large part of the controversy over the Iraq War is the accusations that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence to make the case for the war. However, this is not mentioned at all, only that the WMDs were not found. Obviously this is relevant to Bush, not just the war, as it concerns his actions in the lead up to it.
• The fact that Bush decided to drop his bid for UN approval for the war after working months to get it. Again, this is explaining Bush's actions in the lead up to the war; the fact that he tried to get the approval (even sending Colin Powell to make the case to the UN) and upon failing at that, decided to go it alone with the coalition of the willing is highly notable to his approach to foreign policy.
• That Bush has refused to set a time table for withdrawal of US troops. After looking at the most recent opinion polls as well as the results of the 2006 elections, it clear that there is a large portion of US citizens that want at least a partial withdrawal of troops. The fact that Bush refuses to cave to these demands is notable to his governing style.
• Brief mentioning of the Baker report. As Bush claimed that the war was supposed to make the US safer from terrorism/rogue states, I do think that we need to mention the (purported) results of the war to date. The war is ultimately his responsibility, so its effects are as well.

On a marginally related side note, I see that Australia is listed as a notable member of the coalition of the willing. Last time I calculated, Australian troops account for roughly 0.2% of the total number of troops in Iraq (hardly notable by my standards). Unless someone can show me where my calculations are wrong, I think this needs to be removed.-- Mbc³⁶² 02:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The notability of Australia's commitment is not necessarily because of the size of their commitment, but because of the strong and vocal political support by the Australian government for the invasion and Bush's subsequent policy. You can certainly argue that their troop numbers were not significant, but the Australian commitment was clearly one of the most notable (after that of the UK). Cogswobble 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not impressed by Howard's rhetoric when his actions don't seem to match it. Anyways, does anybody have a problem with me reinsterting the material I've listed?--Mbc³⁶² 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mbc, this is perfect. It's a whole heck of a lot easier to deal with a few bullets of relevant information... thanks a bunch. I definitely did cut out a ton of stuff from the article, and I'll freely admit that some of it deserved mention even in the main GWB article. One by one, let's look at the things you mentioned;

• I can't believe I removed all the information about the WMD intel being faulty. Wow. Absolutely, that needs to be in there. Good catch. (Actually, upon further review, the information about the false intelligence is mentioned later, at the very end of the section as it is currently written... I think if we move that up to the top, saying something like "using evidence/intelligence that was later proven false, Bush ... yada yada yada"... we'll be fine. Does that work for you?)
• I think we can mention that the Bush administration was seeking full UN approval and didn't quite get it, but we don't need to go overboard on it.
• You mean the Iraq Study Group? We can mention its conclusions, briefly. I don't see any problem with that.
• And I'll remove the Aussies right now. Tell you what. If you want to put some of that information in, you can, but otherwise I'll do it later; I think those three things definitely should be in, you are right. Thanks again for your professionalism, it's greatly appreciated. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• For the prewar intelligence I believe we need to do more than just mention that Bush admitted it was wrong. As I said before, much of the controversy is centered around whether his administration misled congress and the American people by manipulating the intelligence to make it appear that it was certain Saddam was a threat. Might I suggest adding the following after the first paragraph?

  In October 2002 the CIA drew together an National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, pulling together the intelligence, estimations, opinions and judgments of 16 different U.S. intelligence services, including dissenting views or challenges to various assertions, from which President Bush received a one-page summary. The question of whether the Bush Administration manipulated or exaggerated the threat and evidence of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities or attempted to create a tie between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda would eventually become a major point of criticism and controversy for the President.

• As for the other material I brought up, 1 or 2 sentences for each of them would be sufficient in my eyes.--Mbc³⁶² 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, and I think the rest would work very well. If you want to do it, be bold and go for it. Thanks again. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added some of it, I'll get to the rest this weekend.--Mbc³⁶² 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

impeachment

Boy, discussing this will sure be fun, but my Doctor has recommended I not slam my head into any brick walls for a while so I'll bite. This is a fringe movement which yes, has been mentioned a few times in the print... but the only motivation to include this in the main article on GWB is if you just want to include as much negative stuff as possible. Small town meetings in vermont? A poll in 2005 by a company that doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article? A Keith Olberman blurb? This is fringe stuff... you could find more stuff in print about people who've threatened to kill GWB or want to marry him or any number of such nonsense. There's no reason to include it in the top level article except because it looks bad for Bush. I like to think Wikipedia articles aren't about that kind of stuff... --W.marsh 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is already an article Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Given that there haven't been any attempts by the Congress to impeach Bush, I think simply linking to the article is plenty here. Polls or individuals that "call for" impeachment are pretty much a non-issue, people should spend their effort in this article on making the real and specific criticisms of Bush clear. Cogswobble 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the latest version of the section before its removal, there was something mentioned about John Conyers starting hearings in Congress. Also, a Republican Senator recently suggested impeachment. This was widely discussed in the media. It would be stupid not to have a small sub section on impeachment in this article. thats all it was - a small sub section. Also, about the neutrality, there was once a version which said that people have opposed impeachment due to possible political fallout. It is also mentioned that Pelosi disapproves. I thought the section was unbiased and deserves to stay. Randomfrenchie 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Trading Sammy Sosa

I don't think this fact is relevant for the article. Bush was an owner of the Texas Rangers, not the general manager of the team. The team received Harold Baines and a few other players in exchange for Sosa, and according to this article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_9_61/ai_90359271 , the trade where the Rangers acquired first baseman Rafael Palmiero during the previous season set the stage for the Sosa trade. Although the media and political opponents portrayed trading Sosa as a blunder during the 2000 election campaign, from a sports perspective it wasn't a bad deal when the whole situation is considered. The characterization is that the Rangers, under Bush's minority owner leadership, gave away one of the "all-time greats" for nothing. Sosa's reputation during the 2000 election campaign was higher than ever as he was still benefitting from the wave of attention following the 1998 home run race. After the subsequent steroid scandal, and his quick demise in playing ability over the last few years, I think his overall historic reputation is not what the sports world thought it would be in 2000. I would recommend either removing this line from the text as irrelevant to Bush's ownership of the team, or add in the fact that the trade was for Harold Baines, another solid baseball player, several other role players, and had significant salary implications. 71.244.55.228 06:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither the general trade nor George W. Bush specifically are mentioned on Sammy Sosa's wikipedia page, where you might expect them to be of higher importance that on a U.S. President's biography page. 71.244.55.228 06:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the sports perspective of the Sosa trade matters much here. The Sosa deal is probably the only detail (if any) that most people know about Bush's tenure with the Rangers, and it was a (minor) issue during the campaign. It still might not merit inclusion, just keep in mind that the sporting aspect of the deal isn't really important. Also, I think the current wording is pretty neutral, and doesn't imply that the deal was a blunder. Cogswobble 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Universally, the most important thing he accomplished as an owner of the Rangers was getting the taxpayers of Arlington, Texas to approve paying for a significant portion of the stadium. This greatly increased the value of the team, of Bush's investment, had a huge positive impact on Bush's public image, and had the most repercussions for him down the road. I would suggest that if any one fact from his tenure with the Rangers is worth noting, it is that he led the public opinion campaign to gather support for a publically funded ballpark. Also, regarding Sosa, the trade was futher insignificant because the Rangers had Juan Gonzalez and Ruben Sierra - both top tier right fielders at the time - on the team, who were as equally shining prospects as Sosa. Regardless, the trade is something that falls under a general manager's responsibility, so the owners rarely give a lot of input, especially on younger players. Taking into account that Bush was a minority owner, we don't have evidence that he was even consulted on the trade, making it irrelevant to his biography. 71.244.57.118 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible bias

I have just finished reading this page, and I have to say honestly its the most misleading wikipedia article I've ever read, I'm sure that Americans who voted for him would not have the same issues with this article as I... Is it possible for someone to edit the article more realisticly, as people in Australia dont know him as this page describes him... and i'm sure a lot of Europe and the middle east would agree. examples: The fallout of Hurricane Katrina, romours behind the September 11 attacks (loose change (second edition)), or the voting inconsitancies in the 2000 election as detailed on the Michael Moore film 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. If this is a matter of fact and notablilty, then perhaps some mention should be made of his family and the influential roles that they haved played in his career, as well as the complete story about the war in Iraq. I dont know if Americans are aware of his certainty that Irag had chemical weapons... but i am. Surely there must be a way to accurately describe this person without getting nasty or making it sound like he's an angel from the stars. Wiki ian 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's an entire section on the 2000 election controversy and a section on the political fallout of Katrina. As for Loose Change, that's very much fringe conspiracy theory stuff, despite how loudly it gets promoted on some corners of the internet, it's real world political relevance is essentially nil. At a glance, it looks like we are a bit lacking in pointing out the serious problems with the evidence presented by the administration in the leadup to the Iraq War. So that's one point you're right on. Bush does have a very bad repuation worldwide, but just because of that the page shouldn't be 90% criticism. That's undue weight even for Adolf Hitler, there's a lot of relatively neutral biographical stuff to cover even about people who are wildly unpopular. --W.marsh 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Wiki ian, is that if we totally covered everything about him in this article, it would be about five thousand miles long. There are countless branch articles that you can look at for more info. As for the other thing, I think perhaps the reason you believe people in Australia don't know him as this page describes him is that... people in Australia don't really know him. =/ That's kind of why you read encyclopedia articles... it's to learn about people, find out things you didn't know (e.g., there's a whole heck of a lot more to Bush than the Iraq War and 9/11). Just my thoughts. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Matt, the news coverage in Australia covers more on President bush than you think. As a very unpopular American President (to the world), just about every botch-up he makes is put on our news channels. It is rumored (with some of his family connections) that he has partially censored American TV. Our own news coverage and a current affairs programs tell us we know more about Bush and the war in Iraq than Americans do, due to the control of information and propoganda over there. Wiki ian 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. The American media is not censored and most certainly not by Bush. Watch so much as 30 minutes of it and you'd know that Bush has absolutely zero control over what is said about him. As to this article, the last thing I'd say is that it slants in Bush's favor. A lot of work has gone into creating a neutral article and I believe it has been achieved. Even the criticism sections stay on point without straying from the facts. Let's also not forget this is supposed to be a biography, not an in depth analysis of every drop of spit that falls from his mouth. auburnpilot talk 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me the news in America has told you every time one of the 3000 service peronsel has been killed in Iraq? As i've heard the bush administration is coaching the news networks over there to keep that to a minimum. So surely if they're doing this much, there's more being done behind the scenes. Not absurd, firghtfully true. Wiki ian 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes we are told every time a soldier dies in Iraq. We are given daily reports of any bombings/shootings including the number of soldiers killed or wounded as well as the number of civilians killed or wounded. As you're obviously not familiar with our media, don't go around making assumptions that its propaganda. Bush has whined about the so called "bias" of the US media, but other than banning them from photographing the soldier's coffins he can't do much about it.--Mbc³⁶² 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Wiki ian's point to be quite apt; too often on topics concerning the USA do the popular opinions prevail as opposed to objective and balanced fact. Criticism plays an essential part of articles such as this, otherwise it runs the risk of becoming pro-American propaganda. It's about balance folks... Spite & Malice 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article already had a criticism section. While some people might like this article to become a laundry list of criticism and little else, that would be a genuine piece of propaganda, much further from being a balanced article than the current article. --W.marsh 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

awkward transition

The transition between the "Governor of Texas" and "2000 Presidential Election" sections of this article is rather abrupt, and I don't think it flows very well. --Deputydog23 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find it very odd that the Hurricane Katrina section occurs before the 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq war sections. Shouldn't these sections occur in chronological order?

9/11

Does the fact they caught the guy behind 9/11 belong here? Under the 9/11 section maybe? With much Spite & Malice 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed really not even merit a mention? Spite & Malice 08:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It might deserve a mention, but use the word "allegedly".Randomfrenchie 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

can i

can i change his name —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girlfromthebigo (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

No. --Deskana (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumbshit? (lol)

Dumbshit redirects here. Though I admit I find that humorous, this isn't for wikipedia. I dunno how to change it, so can someone do that for me? 24.7.125.38 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks for bringing that to our attention.--Mbc³⁶² 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Priceless! Spite & Malice 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He is a wise president. I would appreciate it if you choose to use logic over stupidity. --69.67.230.109 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Gcracker

I am not a George W. Bush fan or supporter in any way (I'm not even American!) but I am a proud supporter of Wikipedia and a denouncer of mis-information, and a user by the name of Gcraker has been vandalising this page recently (see history page) Could someone please do a revert on this? Thanks! --the Patman of Wiki 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the Table of Contents?

The box is there but it is empty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.141.239.249 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 March 2007.

You need to click the word "show" beside it. New posts go to the bottom of the page, so I've moved yours. And by the way, please type four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of posts on talk pages. They convert automatically into your signature and the date, so that we can keep track of who said what. ElinorD (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Page is left from the first paragraph.

I contest the line in the first paragraph that says Bush's term is scheduled to end on 20 January, 2009. This is obvious already, and doesn't warrant inclusion on this page. It is extremely leftist to have this on here because it makes it sound like Wikipedians can't wait to have Bush out of the White House. In essence, I think it is a violation of NPOV. It would be neutral if we didn't include it at all. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CPRdave (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Any president's page would have when they took and left office. Bush will leave office in January of 2009. When he leaves office it will say he served from 2000 to 2009. It's not POV. --PTR 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not relavent to include that line, It is certainly not leftist or un-neutral. Randomfrenchie 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction

The article says that George Bush was elected president in 2000. He was acctually appointed president. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmjnyc (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Although your point of view is valid (see United States presidential election, 2000 Florida results), he was officially declared the winner of election, hence (legally) he was elected. Under WP:NPOV, we have to cover the verifiable legal facts. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)