Jump to content

Talk:George W. Bush: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 99: Line 99:


This is clearly linked to his approval ratings at the time by Gallup analysts, & merits mention in my opinion.[[User:Jpabc|Jpabc]] ([[User talk:Jpabc|talk]]) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly linked to his approval ratings at the time by Gallup analysts, & merits mention in my opinion.[[User:Jpabc|Jpabc]] ([[User talk:Jpabc|talk]]) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

== Can we apply [[WP:Biograpy of a Living Monkey]] / [[WP:Biograpy of a Living Chimp]] criteria instead of [[WP:BLP]]? ==

I want to propose we apply WP:BLM criteria instead of WP:BLP. Let me know. Cheers and thanks!--[[User:Chimpy de CA|Chimpy de CA]] ([[User talk:Chimpy de CA|talk]]) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
* Reply: yes, he is a chimp, and thus not a person. I vote in favor of your proposal. Thanks! --[[User:Chimpy de CA|Chimpy de CA]] ([[User talk:Chimpy de CA|talk]]) 02:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:14, 11 May 2011

Good articleGeorge W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 24, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Template:Controversial (history)

Template:Pbneutral

Template:Maintained

Reasons for war

There should be more than just WMD mentioned in here. That was 1 reason, but not the only reason for going to war. 24.10.14.59 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like PNAC. Wolfowitz. Atleast mention it. They were openly saying that they wanted to stabilize the Middle East by bringing democracy to Iraq as far back as 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.157.112 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest record

Shouldn't this article, in all fairness, list his arrest record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mophedd (talkcontribs) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree.-Flagg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.175 (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a listing of all offenses is in order...that skirts the boundaries of being not notable enough/undue weight, etc. However, a reference that he has a record, or some description therein would probably be about right.204.65.34.242 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this section in the proper tense?

"During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book, which is expected to be published under the title Decision Points in 2010" As this book has been published for some time now, updating the tenses seems logical. Maybe: "During his speech, Bush announced that he had begun writing a book. The book titled Decision Points was published in 2010." References: Amazon Page with the publishing date on it. The New York Times book review dated a few days before the book came out. Online card catalog page for the book from the library of congress. CygnetFlying (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Congressional election gains

Why is there no mention of this phenomenon (2002 Congressional election gains) throughout the article? Mid-term gains are considered quite rare.

This is clearly linked to his approval ratings at the time by Gallup analysts, & merits mention in my opinion.Jpabc (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]