Talk:George W. Bush

Unlock

Despite possible vandalism open up the article. --93.82.6.206 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't even survive a pending changes trial back in June. Unprotection would be disastrous. If you'd like to suggest an improvement to the article, add {{Editprotected}} to the talk page, along with your suggested change. Another editor will then consider making the edit on your behalf. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] Despite beeing proteced there is vandalism on Barack Obama page. So it makes no difference, protected or not. --93.82.6.206 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Them make yourself a real account and become a legitimate editor, and you won't have to worry about it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 10:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

POV

Is it necessary to put a point on editorials from left leaning publications calling Bush the worst President ever? Unicorn76 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. Is is appropriate to include: 'Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker, have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance' especially given the arguments preventing any mention on Al Gore's page regarding the Oregon sex scandel. If that is not mentioned because it is not 'proven', then this comment regarding Bush should also not be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.144.142.243 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bush war crimes

The war in Iraq has been accused of being a war of aggression. As the President, Bush is simultaneously accused of being a war criminal. Should there not be a mention of these accusations on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.174.156 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You may as well include details on the loonies that accuse him of orchestrating 9/11. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate accusations of war crimes since Iraq was a just war of aggression on behalf of a country against its tyrant, and anyone disputing this version of events has opinions that are not compatible with the eyncyclopedic nature of wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:121.45.185.1 (talk • contribs)

On behalf of a country against its tyrant? seems pretty unencyclopedic and blatant POV to me. There is no such thing as a just war of aggression, according to international law and the UN charter, and there is no dispute that there was no legal or moral basis for the war in Iraq. There should certainly be mentions of the amount of people that died directly due to Bush involvement, and his illegal war, as well as possible war crime tribunals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.225.100 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to ignore UN resolutions and support by Congress. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Until there are international charges brought against the former President, every claim about him being a "war criminal" is POV as well and is basically hearsay. If you've got a reliable source that can affirm a charge in a court of law brought against the former President, then by all means, share it with us.  Amit  ►  13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

which included a housing market correction

Housing market correction is a use of weasel words. should be housing market crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacisd34 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is technical term in economics with a specific meaning. "Crash," on the other hand, is not a specific term and does not carry specific meaning. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated image

An image of President Bush with Pope John Paul II appears twice in the article: under Foreign policy and Foreign perceptions. Is this duplication correct or does it need to be fixed? SMP0328. (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also just noticed that. Needs to be fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.158.127 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Glennconti (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Decision Points

Memoir by GW Bush43 is out Nov 9, 2010 titled "[Decision Points]" which should be added to the End of page references Here's amazon.com ref for that new memoir by Bush43 ... http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288999056&sr=1-1 huangde hoondai sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be wikispam. SMP0328. (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Post-presidency section should be updated to show that Decision Points has been published. 69.99.140.114 (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are related to Hugh Hefner

I was reading through an mX newspaper from March 2, 2010, and I discovered that in one caption, entitled "It's True!", it states:

Former president George W. Bush and Senator John Kerr [sic] are related (to) Hugh Hefner. The Playboy founder is ninth cousin to both men.

Further research points to an article written by Joel Roberts for CBS News, Bush, Kerry & Hefner: Odd Cousins.

Although a truly unusual piece of information, is this worth adding to Wikipedia? Eug.galeotti (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's trivia. SMP0328. (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict) No. It's absolutely USELESS trivia. Do enough searching and one can prove that just about any two people are related, especially if they are from the same country and ethnic backgrounds. Of what importance or notability is relation to Hefner? I cannot think of any. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist history

I noticed there been much activity on this page within the last months, I would like to remind everyone to stay neural about some very controversial decisions this president made which are still in effect in the world we live in today. I do see that some "failing" during his leadership have been toned down. Wikipedia is not the place for history revisionism, all negative and positive things some be brought to the table so the reader can decide for them-selfs about there opinion on his presidency. Thanatos465 (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As with all BLPs, neutral content is essential. This is especially true regarding articles about controversial figures. SMP0328. (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything said here. However, I do want to point out that opinions do change over time. Apparently Bush has had an up-tick in his favorable ratings since he left office. Is WP going to be a time capsule or reflect the views as currently held? I don't know. This is a reference to the up-tick which may explain what is happening here. Glennconti (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would note that many of the controversial things he did were continued by Obama and are now less controversial. So, were they really controversial, or was it simply that the media in general did not like him and made everything he did seem controversial. Now that Obama has either decided to continue, or feels he must continue those positions, that same media is left in an awkward position. This revisionist history that you are deriding is the consciquence of the Obama fawning media being put into a situation where to continue to criticize Bush would require criticism of Obama. Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. It is with no small irony, that for Obama decisions to look good, Bush's must all be viewed more favorably. Unless the left decide to suddenly turn strongly on Obama, Bush's decisions will/have to be veiwed more favorably in a historical context. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Arrest attempt in Switzerland

I've moved the info about the attempt to arrest Bush in Switzerland to a "Charges of human rights violations" subsection of the "Post-presidency" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't get ahead of yourself. It was not an attempted arrest. Amnesty International was asking Switzerland to investigate Bush. Bush had diplomatic immunity. Please read the references. Moving the material is fine with me. Glennconti

Sorry, bad move. That is, the move itself. The cancelled visit to Switzerland does not deserve a stand-alone heading. Not significant enough. I think it sits better where it was: perceptions of Bush, or reactions to Bush-- this being only one of many reactions. But I won't move it back until we have a consensus on how to handle it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, some other editor decided without waiting for a consensus simply to remove it, with this edit That is also wrong. It belongs where it started so I will simply return it where it was.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate in the "Post-presidency" section, because that's when it happened, but there could also be a separate "Controversies" section. The problem with it being in the "Foreign perceptions" section is that the Center for Constitutional Rights, one of the human rights groups involved, is an American organization. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It might also fit in the "Foreign policies" section "Interrogation policy" subsection. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not recommend having a Contraversies section. For a US president it would be too large, since every president has many controversial issues/events that occur during their term(s). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I think the "Interrogation policies" subsection is a better location. I'll boldly move it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor orphaned paragraph. Homeless, unwelcome anywhere. Interrogation policies seems to be about the polices as they developed, and not about the reaction to them two years after Bush left office. But I'll leave it alone for now until we figure out where the poor thing can find a suitable home.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

At some point there may be enough similar instances to populate a separate section. There is certainly no agreement that Bush is entitled to diplomatic immunity. Such immunity would tear a huge loophole in the Convention Against Torture. In Pinochet's case, Great Britain concluded that he was not entitled to diplomatic immunity. (See Augusto Pinochet's arrest and trial#Arrest in London.) JamesMLane t c 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please. Comparing Bush's authorization of waterboarding on a couple of terrorists is in no way comparable to the actions of Pinochet. Arzel (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In this context, they're completely comparable. The issue is diplomatic immunity. Someone who has complete diplomatic immunity can't be prosecuted for genocide or for a parking ticket. The Pinochet example disproves any contention that all former heads of state are always entitled to such complete immunity (which is what I think was Pinochet's contention in the British courts). There aren't many precedents, of course, because there aren't all that many former heads of state against whom there's a colorable case.

It might turn out that the line is drawn where you suggest. Maybe a former head of state who has ordered the torture of only a few fellow human beings is entitled to take advantage of some sort of "boys will be boys" exception to the Convention Against Torture. At this juncture, though, I don't think we can safely assert either that Bush would have been entitled to immunity or that he would not have been. JamesMLane t c 06:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed captivating and lively as a Pinochet vs. Bush, quality versus quantity debate might be-- I hope the above editors will forgive a gentle reminder, taken from the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are editing an encyclopedia, not moderating an O'Reiily or Chris Mathews show. Which I grant would be more fun.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

More Irish than German

I looked at Bush's family tree and he has more Irish ancestors than German ancestors. Can someone change the "primarily of german descent" part?