Talk:George W. Bush

Template:FAOL/Small Template:FACfailed/Small Template:Oldpeerreview/Small

Vague/unsupported statements

The following statement should not be in an encyclopedia. It is a vague accusation from a different political party: "Throughout his political career, Bush has been criticized over his induction and period of service. Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, and that he was irregular in attendance". Is this an article on George W Bush, or his critics. If it is about what his critics think, then shame on wikipedia.

This "Jesus Day" blurb here is flat out wrong. That was an stunt which went completely unnoticed (and unnoted) by Texans. It was not a "popular measure" ... I can guarantee you that 99% of Texans have never heard of it. "Jesus Day" only appeared on Bush's website, and was only done along with about 25 other state governors who all declared "Jesus Day" on the same day! This is not something that is specific to Texas, and it was not something Bush invented. A simple googling of "Jesus Day" will provide the truth. Delete this from here.

Regarding social security, it's "Third rail" of politics, not "fifth rail" (the third rail being the electrical one that will kill you if you touch it), please someone with authority change it. Is this meant to be some kind of a joke on bush always getting proverbs wrong? If so it's funny but doesn't belong in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.48.84 (talk • contribs) .

Done, thanks for pointing it out! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement makes me uncomfortable, as it asserts causality without an authoritative source (I could see it being backed up by survey results with many answering "Why do you support the president?" with "His response to 9/11"; that said, I'd still be more comfortable with it reading along the lines of "Surveys taken soon after the attacks showed a marked increase in his approval ratings, with a majority supporting his response to the 9/11 attacks." or something).

• "His response to 9/11 led to an immediate surge in his popularity."

---Knoepfle 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing a run-through of the article for any statements that look like they need some citation. I've decided that I'll note them here first rather than simply deleting them so that the person(s) who put them in the article have a chance to provide sources for them. (Also a few other statements I have issues with.)

• "Bush was an entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas..." (Intro) - It's common knowledge by now that he was involved in the oil industry in some way, but the problem here is with the term "entrepreneur." It has very positive connotations in American society, so we should hesitate to apply it to him without some verification that it's valid. Personally, I would only use the term if the person it referred to innovated a new, successful business, which is definitely not the case here.
• "George W. Bush is the first president to have run a marathon. Before running for governor of Texas he completed the 1993 Houston Marathon in 3:44:52 for a pace of about 8:36/mile. He had been running since he was 26 and, before taking office, ran 15 to 30 miles a week." (Early Life) - Need a source for this

See http://www.runnersworld.com/footnotes/gwbush/racingrecord.html for Runners World listing of his races. See also "20 Questions for President George W. Bush: A Running Conversation by Bob Wischnia & Paul Carrozza" at http://www.runnersworld.com/footnotes/gwbush/20questions.html which has the following Q and A with Bush:

Q "I know you ran a marathon in Houston in 1993. What are your recollections from that?

A"I was distraught after my dad was defeated in 1992 so I decided I was going to set a little project for myself. I wanted to run the White Rock Marathon in Dallas so I began training intensely for it. I gave myself a month to train for it and pushed myself incredibly hard as this after-election therapy. But I got sick and it was really a foolish attempt on my part.

Q"It takes a lot longer than a month to get ready for a marathon."

A"Dr. Ken Cooper of the Cooper Clinic told me the same thing. So I set my sights on Houston which gave me some more time to train. I ran it in 3:44. I ran the first mile in 8 _ minutes and the last mile in 8 _ minutes. It was one of the great experiences of my life."Edison 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; that citation has been added. ---DrLeebot 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Although Bush was criticized for violating the constitutional separation of church and state ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."), his initiative was popular with most people across the state, especially religious and social conservatives." (Governor of Texas) - Fixed up some POV issues in this, but both parts of the statement will still need sourcing. I'm sure there's something out there for the first part, just have to find it. Not so sure about the second part.
• "As one of the most popular governors in the nation..." (2000 Presidential election) - Unless we can source this, it's blatantly POV.
• "While stressing his successful record as governor of Texas, Bush's campaign attacked the Democratic nominee, incumbent Vice President Al Gore, over gun control and taxation. Bush criticized the Kyoto Protocol, championed by Gore, citing the decline of the industries in the midwestern states, such as West Virginia, and resulting economic hardships." (and similar staments) (2000 Presidential election) - Is it NPOV to talk about what his campaign claims were without mentioning his opponents' claims were?
• "On December 9, in the Bush v. Gore case, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the statewide hand recount. The machine recount showed that Bush had won the Florida vote, giving him 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266; Bush carried 30 of the 50 states." (2000 Presidential election) We should mention the claims or critics here that the court was overstepping its power in doing this. Just need a good source for it.

Isn't that covered in the 2000 Controversy sections? Dubc0724 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's covered in the controversy section of the main article on the election, yes, but it seems to me that this excerpt does an exceedingly poor job at showing just how much controversy there was. All it really says in this regard is, "The vote count, which favored Bush in preliminary tallies, was contested over allegations of irregularities in the voting and tabulation processes." Compare this to the discussion of Hayes' election in his article, where the controversy is discussed in depth. ---DrLeebot 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's an entire article for 2000, so one would assume it's covered. (And no, I didn't "need" that many indents - I was simply trying to make sure my edit stood out from your comments, rather than making it appear as if I was editing your comments. Didn't realize it was such a big deal.) Dubc0724 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also an entire article on the 1876 election, and yet the controversy is still discussed in Hayes' article. (And on the indenting, a single indent more that the previous is preferred, as any more makes the comments run into the side of the page quite quickly. An alternative style is for each new person to use one more indent than the last, and for each to keep their own number of indents in each category. I tend not to do this, as it seems to break up the flow of conversation.) ---DrLeebot 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• "President George W. Bush was regarded by his political opponents and many in the media as lacking a popular mandate, having lost the popular vote." (First term) - Needs source
• "Bush's domestic agenda carried forward themes of increased responsibility for performance from his days as Texas governor, and he worked hard to lobby the adoption of the No Child Left Behind Act, with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy as chief sponsor. The legislation aims to close the achievement gap, measures student performance, provides options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and targets more federal funding to low-income schools." (First term) - Needs cite, plus we should mention the extreme criticism of NCLB (basically, that it absolutely fails to accomplish its stated goals).
• "Bush is a supporter of stem cell research..." (First term) - Needs a cite if we're going to keep it saying that he supports the research. Some critics have claimed that his actions in banning research from stem-cells taken from embryos are (or will be) almost completely curbing research ability.

Don't have time to look any more at the moment; I'll finish this off a bit later. ---DrLeebot 14:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, continuing now:

• "Arguably, cuts were distributed disproportionately to higher income taxpayers through a decrease in marginal rates, but the change in marginal rates was greater for those of lower income, resulting in an income tax structure that was more progressive overall." (First Term) - Will definitely need a good cite if you want to leave it saying this made the tax more progressive. The whole thing the cut did was actually quite complicated, and this was a trick to make it look like it was more progressive. In the end, people at the low end ended up paying just as much (or close to) as before, but it was in different types of taxes plus they lost a lot of benefits.
• "Bush's imposition of a tariff on imported steel and on Canadian softwood lumber was controversial in light of his advocacy of free market policies in other areas; this attracted criticism both from his fellow conservatives and from nations affected. The steel tariff was later rescinded under pressure from the World Trade Organization. A negotiated settlement to the softwood lumber dispute was reached in April 2006, and the historic seven-year deal was finalized on July 1, 2006." (First term) - Probably true, but still needs a cite.
• "Public perceptions of Bush were reputedly of lacking interest in foreign affairs. However, the Bush Administration implemented major changes in U.S. foreign policy by withdrawing its participation in the 1998 Kyoto Protocol (although in 1998 the Senate vote to participate in the treaty was 0 for and 95 against) and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, in order to pursue national missile defense." (First term) - Blatantly POV, but I can't think of a good way to rework it right now that retains the information.

Okay, I'm not done going through this, but I think that's enough for us to work on for the time being. ---DrLeebot 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work, DrLeebot. Articles can only become better when attention to detail is paid as it pertains to NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this: "The 9/11 Commission report concluded that Saddam's government was actively attempting to acquire technology that would allow Iraq to produce WMD as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted.[44]" The only places in the Commission Report where Hussein is mentioned in connection with WMD are:

• 351: "A Defense Dept. paper...argued that... al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq's long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction" [no further discussion]

• 358: "We believe American and international public opinion [re: war on terror / war in Iraq] might have been different--and so might the range of options for a president--had they been informed of these details [about who Bin Laden was, how he ran his organization, etc.]. Recent examples of such debates include calls to arms against such threats as Serbian ethnic cleansing, biological attacks, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, global climate change, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic."

• 351: "...the memo said...there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons."

The following is ambiguous--it's the one place where Hussein is mentioned in connection with UN inspections (not sanctions exactly) and it does allude, although very obliquely, to pursuit of WMD technology:

• p 136: "[Clinton] was facing the possibility of major combat operations against Iraq. Since 1996, the UN inspections regime had been increasingly obstructed by Saddam Hussein. The United States was threatening to attack unless unfettered inspections could resume." [thus operation Desert Fox]

The only place where Iraq is mentioned in regard to sanctions per se is P. 66, in a passage about how Bin Laden "spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War." Cyrusc 00:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the right call. I have been reading the 9/11 commission report and agree with this deletion. Thanks for the thorough explanation of the change...The fact that the footnote referenced no particular passage of a 500+ page report was one indication that it was incorrect.Benzocane 01:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"On 28 August 2006 Congress approved bill that makes President detainee interrogation program legal.[63] The bill was needed after Supreme Court decided in June that the program is illegal.[63] It was second time President tried to approve it through Congress. [63] The bill is considered important for the Republican party election program in the coming election.[63]" How in the fart is this statement NPOV? "The bill was needed...." "The bill is considered important.." I could just as equally say.."The bill is considered treasonous" The manner in which the information is presented is dishonest as well, because there is no way to corrently and honestly validate these statements. The level of "need" for any idea,program,product,noun is by definition a subjective statement. Who says this bill is needed? The Administration? The supporters of the President's Program? I'm not comfortable adding the presumed person or persons whom believe "This bill is needed" and "This bill is important". I've not edited many contentious articles. Is burden on me, to fully disqualify or fully qualify these statements, or is the burden on the adding contributor to support their contributions? That is, is fully removing these statements acceptable, or is it vandalism?Jotorious 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Stem Cell Issue

In the domestic policies section, it is mentioned that using existing stem cell lines is "obviating the need to destroy embryos." This wording should be changed, because it implies something that is false. Existing stem cells lines are outdated and are very limited in their potential for research. Thus, they only "obviate" the need to destroy embryos in a legal sense. In practical science, new stem cells are created and destroyed without federal support because new cells are needed for sufficient progress to be made. 70.105.49.78 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian Burnet, 8/16/0670.105.49.78 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think either of use are qualified to make that call, inserting your own POV is called origional research, it is frowned up[on here, until then, let's just leave it to the experts. And the experts in this case, would rather not destroy embryos for no reason.--RCT 01:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any citation after the paragraph in question, meaning that too must be POV and original research by your definition. And I don't recall ever hearing any expert claim it has obviated the need to destroy embryos. I agree that the wording needs to be changed, at least so it doesn't state it in a matter-of-fact manner. i.e. "proponents claim it will obviate the need to destroy embryos" mbc362 11:18, 4 October 2006

I made some changes to the stem cell paragraph. The opening claim of a “total ban” on research during “the latter years of the Clinton administration,” was misleading, not to say false. A rider on legislation signed in 1995 by President Clinton, the Dickey Amendment prohibited federal funding of any research that involved the creation or destruction of human embryos. Shortly after Dr. James A. Thompson first isolated human ES cells in 1998, the National Institutes of Health obtained legal counsel from the Department of Health and Human Services that said ES research was legal so long as the ES cells were derived using private funds. On Aug. 25, 2000 with President Clinton’s full support, NIH released guidelines for federal funding of ES research and opened the door for the first ES research grant applications.. The “executive order” referred to in the entry did not “lift a ban”; what President Bush did on Aug. 9, 2001 was backpedal slightly on his intial, strongly oppositional statements about ES research. He announced that he would allow federally funded research to go forward, provided that the only cells used were from existing cell lines. I also revised the section to give a more accurate portrayal of the President’s policy on stem cell research, as well as an indication of the surrounding controversy. The domestic ES research debate has two sides: those who want to expand research, and those who want to restrict it. It is simply deceptive for WP to portray President Bush as motivated to remove Clinton-era restrictions on the research, and it seems to me that only through willful omission of information can we discuss the issue as though it has not all along been characterized by passionate opposition and debate. Bottom line is that the significance of President Bush’s role in the ES cell struggle is to stay true to his staunchly pro-life philosophy, and in general this means opposing expansion of research. Cyrusc 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to commend the recent edit for introducing more neutral language, in addition to so many helpful references. Any suggestion that President Bush's stance regarding stem cell legislation is a position merely staked out in contrast to that of the Clinton White House misses the mark and deserves revision. As the editor rightly contends, President Bush's position on the stem cell debate is motivated by firmly held philosophical commitments. --Jimmyhogg 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Applicability of "George Bush, Jr.

The intro is correct in saying that he is not George Bush, Jr., but gives an incorrect reason. The 41st President, alhough named in full (for his grandfather) George Herbert Walker Bush, he has always used the name "George Bush." When he became president, critics fell into the habit of using all of his names, perhaps to exploit the common belief that more than three names suggests aloof aristocracy. Barbara Bush once objected to this. noting tartly "He has only two initials on his briefcase." I'm too new to be allowed to edit this article, but I suggest it would be more accurate if "Since his father goes by George H. W. Bush, this is not applicable" read "Since his father's full name is George Herbert Walker Bush, this is incorrect." I license this suggestion to any empowered editor who thinks it an improvement. Samhook 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, I don't think this information necessarily belongs in the (already too long) introduction. I have moved it to "Early life." --ElKevbo 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Typically, when the term "Junior" is used it is between a father and son with identical names - These two have different full names. I believe that if the son's name was George Herbert Walker Bush, he would be called George Herbert Walker Bush, Jr. (or simply George H.W. Bush, Jr.) The Incredible Moo 09:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

George Walker Bush II is the appropriate title. He is the 2nd George Bush. Whether he has 10 middle names he is still the Second George. Junior is less acceptable. When someone is the 1st the roman numeral is by default left out. There has never been a "King John Junior" or "Pope John Junior". Givin that this President is the most powerful man on Earth it is fitting that President "George Walker Bush II" is his complete appropriate complete title.

This article's title is the name of the son of George H.W. Bush. He is called George W. Bush. There for, he is NOT George W. Bush, jr. --Yancyfry jr 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

He is not George Walker Bush II for the same reason he is not George Walker Bush, Jr: he does not have the same name as his father. As for "Pope John Junior," I'll let someone else explain that one to you. PacificBoy 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush and God

There was a Newsweek cover in 2003 "Bush and God", and in 2005 there was this story of Bush claiming that he was on a mission by God to fight terrorists in Afghanistan and end tyranny in Iraq. Anyway GWB did use religion to an extraordinary degree in his political carreer. Shouldn't there be a section in the article discussing this? Dianelos 23:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Studies have shown that Bill Clinton invoked God and Jesus far more often during his presidency than Bush has. Do you really want to go there? And did you actually read the article you linked? "The White House dismissed as “absurd” the remarks attributed to Bush..."--Aaron 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, would you mind citing your source(s) for that first statement? Duke53 | ^Talk 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a copy of an article written by Dr. Paul Kengor, Ph.D.[1]; it's not the original study, but an article he wrote about the study, reproduced on a site I haven't heard of before. I've seen others, but this study is the one that I remember reading previously (not this article; the actual study.....I know it's available online somewhere). If somebody happens to find the actual study, link it here. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I too think that Bill Clinton was a religious person and that his faith played a role in his policies (maybe to try to help the downtrodden?), and I think that WP's page on Clinton's should discuss this. As for the article I linked above of course the White House spokesman would try to dismiss this particular piece of information (it was a private conversation and it makes GWB appear as a religious nutcase). Still, the story has the ring of truth in it. Why should the alleged witness of Bush's words, Nabil Shaath, claim Bush told him these things if it weren't true? Also observe that Shaath himself later tried to soften the story's impact. Finally according to this BBC story Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, was also present in that meeting and confirmed part of Shaath’s words. Now it seems that later both men understood this was working against their cause and tried some damage control; see here. Anyway, I really think that GWB's faith helps explain a lot of his policies and general stance - as well as his political success - and that a section discussing these issues would improve the article's quality, but if this article's editors think that for some reason these issues are not noteworthy I won’t press the matter. This was just a suggestion. Dianelos 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is mostly OT but I think the reason no one cares about when Bill Clinton or other similar democracts use god and refer to god is because few people are stupid enough to think they really believe what they say about god. On the other hand, Bush does actually appear to believe what he says about god which is very scary... Nil Einne 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious redirecting

I just wanted to make you guys know that Jiberole has redirected the following articles to this article:

1. Worst President
2. Worst US President (this has been deleted)
3. Worst United States President (this has been deleted)
4. Worst president ever

Could someone undo this and stop the user. Gdo01 02:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems several people took notice. They've been speedy deleted. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AuburnPilot for fixing this. Gdo01 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The user who created all these redirects from unimaginable typos should be contacted and warned. (Example below) Ruff ^{Bark away!}02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Photos

Okay, call me a malcontent, but all the pictures of the president are, well, happy pictures of the president, doing happy things, looking presidential, all very posed and whatnot ("the President visits Mexico, with other very pale foreigners ..."). there's the one nasty shot of a foreign newspaper taking a swipe at him, but that's about it. would it be asking too much to have some, I dunno, Americans who don't look too happy interacting with their president? I might make him look more like the leader of an (actual, functioning) democracy, and less like Big Brother. Hail Oceania! If I found one, might I include it without too much backlash? Blondlieut 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the most important thing would be to make sure the photos are appropriate for both the article and the section in which they are placed. But the general objection you have raised and the proposed solution both make sense to me. Go for it! --ElKevbo 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And how many pictures like that do we have on the Bill Clinton page? Shouldn't we be more worried about the relevance and informational value of pictures than about how positive or negative they are? -Silence 01:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, Bill Clinton's page could use some work in the picture area. As far as this page, I don't see any problem with Blondlieut's suggestion. Like ElKevbo said, so long as they are appropriate for the article and section (not an image of Bush yelling at a reporting in the "early life" section or a picture of him as a child in the domestic policy section), a few pictures that aren't posed would be great; happy or otherwise. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Silence, I would invite you to re-read what I wrote. I was looking for pictures regarding Bush's presidency (and folks' reaction to him and his policies) that would suggest that the United States is a functioning democracy. Do you consider that "positive" or "negative"? I would hope that you would consider that positive, regardless of your views of George W. Bush. Blondlieut 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, they're mostly happy, grining pictures of Old Bill on the Clinton page. If you find any pictures of folks assembling hither and yon calling for his impeachment, I think you should post those. As I recall, living in Washington, D.C., the riot police were just out in full force for that, bitter Americans by the hundreds of thousands marching on the White House. It really was a sight to see! Or maybe I'm being delusional. Or sarcastic. You choose. Blondlieut 02:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Click me to see the full image; it's worth the time

Okay, so I found a picture I'm almost happy with. It's from an Iraq War protest in September 2005, it's a CC designation Wikipedia likes, and it shows the protest going on down Pennsylvania Avenue in Northwest Washington, close to Main Justice, with counterprotester (i.e., Bush supporters), in the foreground (almost more prominently than the protesters. So, it shows a real, life "public debate" about a central matter of the Bush presidency, it's oddly balanced (I didn't expect that), and it suggests that the United States is a functioning democracy. feedback?? Blondlieut 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Where in the article would this pic go? It's a great image, quality and content wise, but I'm not sure I see where you want it to go...War section? Foreign Policy? Somewhere else? I'm going to insert it and preview a few placements without saving it so I can get some ideas. (oh and I shrunk the image; i know you worked hard to get it to a perfect size but it really was taking up a lot of space on this page; hope you don't mind. ;-)) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 08:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The image here has nothing to do with the President...maybe in anti war protesting articles or something like that, but it's not relative to this article.--MONGO 08:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the President? Well, the folks in the foreground have a sign that reads "Bush, the vision, the willpower and the backbone," so I'm not sure how it has nothing to do with Bush. The folks who are protesting are protesting against "Bush's war." There's a section on "Public perception;" this tells the story of the passions that Bush and his policies as President provokes, on the part of both his supporters and detractors. What could be more important to say about a president than that? That certainly does not come out in anything written thus far in the article. The photo says more about the president, though it does not show his likeness, than anything on the article page. What does the photo of him in front of the Mexico pyriad tells us about him?? That he went on a taxpayer-paid vacation to Mexico? Not terribly informative, really. Blondlieut 18:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Other then a mention of Bush the photo has little to do with him, it's not even at a location that he was scheduled to appear at (ie like protesters that show up at his public speaks). Now that photo might be good for the public perception article, but it has no place in this article. PPGMD 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PPGMD that "public perception" is the only place that it belongs. Last I checked, however, that was still part of the main article. Even if could find a photo for an event at which he was scheduled to attend (there are some, but most are abroad, and none of those have anything that would suggest any support for the president at all, of course), I would think the same placement would be appropriate. Blondlieut 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No I meant the Public Perception sub-article, unless the picture has or was likely to have Bush in it, it really has little place in this article. PPGMD 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe photos are for more than showing us what Bush looks like (or at least have the potential for that). I would suggest to you that all of the photos already in the article do merely that, and preciously little more than that, and this is simply a waste of space. Blondlieut 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with your initial thought of pictures that aren't so stiff, but being Bush's bio, I think he should atleast be in the photo...or somewhere nearby. Did you find any candids of him? Maybe interacting with the people? (Does he do that?). Something less formal, but still focusing on Bush is what I imagined. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

NO LUCK!!! Blondlieut 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this photo features him, kind of [2]. Unfortunately we can't use it as it'll have to be fair use but we don't like fair use when we have other images unless there is a compelling reason (well okay I know that's not the only reason we can't use it, but anyway...) Nil Einne 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the image of George Bush in uniform. A National Guard uniform is no different than an Active Duty Uniform. Therefore, it makes no sense to refer to his uniform as a National Guard uniform in the caption. Could someone please edit the caption to read "LT George W. Bush."RedKnight34 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not be phrased in precisely the right or best manner but the idea that his branch of service should be identified is very important. Simply titling it as "Lieutenant George W. Bush" is insufficient as all branches of the US Armed Forces have the rank or "Lieutenant." I'll go even further and state that the caption needs to be made more specific - is he a 1st Lieutenant or a 2nd Lieutenant in this photo? --ElKevbo 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with stating whether or not he is a first or second lieutenant, hard to tell from the picture though. I still think that the caption puts too much focus on National Guard. A reference to the Air Force may be appropriate, but I think his branch of service, for the sake of the phot, is irrelevant, as it is clearly mentioned in the article that he joined the National Guard.RedKnight34 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:P

This page should be permanantly be locked... There Have Been Alot Of Things Going On And Will Cause Petty Vandalism All Over The Place.

Offensiveandconfusing 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Youre totally right, haha. It's never goign to get unlocked XD 3R1C 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

confusing

The statement "Bush is the descendant of English settlers from Somerset in the West Country of England. His family moved to Texas when he was two years old." is confusing - it makes it sound like Bush was born in England and then moved to the US. I know this is probably minor but I think it should at least be rephrased if not excluded altogether, since the article is about GWB *WHILE* he existed, not before! ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say: I agree with Bad here. And removing such phrases frees up room for more substantial text.Benzocane 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the beginning of the very sentence, it notes his birthplace is Connecticut. Kasreyn 06:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bad as well. I've rewritten it as Bush is the eldest son of George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara Bush. Bush's family are descended from English settlers from Somerset in the West Country of England. His family moved to Texas from Conneticut when he was two years old. Less confusing, I thought. Walton monarchist89 09:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Just wondering why the opening paragraph is so long. I enjoyed the format of the Bill_Clinton and George_H._W._Bush articles much more than this format. There seems to be too much information. I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with this approach on its face -- after all Ronald_Reagan, Jimmy_Carter and Gerald_R._Ford all have long introduction paragraphs as well. I just think its odd that I read the opening paragraph, then read all the same information again in each section. I'm just wondering what everyone else thought. Thanks, -- 131.107.0.73 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, but the trouble with a controversial article like this is that if you take anything out, however minor, people start quibbling and accuse you of pushing your own POV. If you examine the history of this talk page - which would probably by now fill a fair-sized library - you'll see how difficult it is to get any kind of consensus on any edit. Not to mention, there's constant vandalism by anti-Bush hooligans who like to add obscene comments. Sad, but it's one of the intrinsic drawbacks of Wikipedia. Walton monarchist89 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush 2004 or 2000 campaign

Hello, I am looking for informations on GW Bush s campain in either 2000 or in 2004...i am trying to analize the campaign from an advertising point of view...

Thank you for you help...if you could send me a mail with some links it would be great...

ionescu.t.tim@gmail.com

thank s again,

tim

Better yet post it right here for all to see. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Video

I removed the link to the video of Bush giving the "One finger victory salute". It was not mentioned in the body of the page and since it was not mentioned as some sort of scandal, I felt it was superfluous to the page in general. Davemo 04:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed since it doesn't benefit the article in any way. This was discussed once before very briefly. AuburnPilot^Talk 05:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

He's an angry man. Stop trying to push your POV. The public will know eventually... 128.62.103.232 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced. AuburnPilot^Talk 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and public perception

As of May 24, 2006, an average of major polls indicated that Bush's approval rating stood at 36.8%. As of 30 August 2006 his rating was 38.8%. On 9 September it was 40.0% and on 19 September 2006 it was 41.0%. On 27 September it had grown again, and was 42.0%.

Is it really necessary, or even appropriate, to update Bush's standing in the polls each week? Seems like overkill. How about simply stating that the polls show an upswing? AuburnPilot^Talk 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but now they have dropped!Edison 04:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "have fluxuated frequently over the last year" with a link to the aproval raitings website. Piuro 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

response:

if only there were some way society had to convey the movement of a value over time, maybe with one of the human senses. perhaps music, or touch, or smell... or maybe a graph.

IQ

I'm not saying I hate Bush, but after a lot of internet research, I found this : http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm - a link that clearly states this : "..Forwarded email attributed to the nonexistent 'Lovenstein Institute' claims a recent report proves G.W. Bush has the lowest IQ of any modern president..". Do you think we should put something about this in the article? --71.252.128.218 02:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should something that is "obviously satire" be posted on a fact based encyclopedia. Especially when the source itself says: "I have found no evidence of a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania or anywhere else. There's no trace of a "Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist" or "Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, world-respected psychiatrist" — not in this world, at any rate. All of the facts and figures appear to have been fabricated." Gdo01 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, no need for something like that in the main article. It is, however, briefly mentioned as being a hoax in the more specialized article Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"From time to time, Bush's intellectual capacities have been questioned by the media [101] and other politicians [102], leading to speculation about his IQ, of which no official record is known [103]." This is inflamitory, irrelevent, and factually unsuported (yes, we know that people question his intellegence, but there is nothing indicating that this is true. On the contrary, "Daddy's money" claims aside, the fact that he graduated from Yale speaks of an above average degree of intellegence. Articulation does not equal intellegence. Piuro 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not make the statement factually unsupported or even untrue. The sentence only states that people have questioned his intellectual capacities, which you admit yourself. Believe it or not, this is a big part of how people, especially outside the US feel about GWB. Maybe its not a correct view of him, but denying that people feel this way is ignoring an opinion about him shared by many people. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but I don't see how that is relevent to the article, and it clearly is phrased in such a manner as ti suggest truth in those statements (Which, even if you think there is, violates NPOV. Piuro 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree it is phrased to suggest that. The sentence reports what the 3 sources linked tell us. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I could find sources saying that George Bush is a duck, it doesn't make it relevent to the topic at hand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piuro (talk • contribs) 23:40, October 13, 2006 (UTC)

If one could find a peer-reviewed article stating that he is a duck then it might very well be relevant.

That there is a peer-reviewed article is one of the linchpins on which this topic discussion swings. I think we're perfectly okay saying that "A lot of people think he's dumb" as long as we can support that statement with a lot of references supporting the statement. To state that "He's dumb" would, of course, be completely unaceptable. --ElKevbo 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Its phrased in a very different way than "Some people think he's dumb." It practically says "Mass media is of the opinion that ush is dumb", which comes off much more like saying "There is be some legitimacy to these claims." Piuro 07:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't read it that way at all. But if if bothers you go ahead and try changing it to something else so we can see what you think it should say. Or propose something here. --ElKevbo 08:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, more detailed information can be found in the article Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush, which also includes that study. Previously, there was agreement here not to include that particular study in this article. The discussion can be found here: Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_50#Bush.27s_IQ. I have no objections to other ways of formulating the sentence. I would object to removing it all together, for the reasons explained above (it is well-sourced, verifiable and a major part of how people outside the US see GWB). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we should remove it and leave a link to further contraversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piuro (talk • contribs) 03:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the type of stuff that people add when they attempt to vandilise the article--Coasttocoast 05:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It can look like something added by people attempting to vandalize, but, as I stated before, it is a major part of how people outside the US see GWB and it is well-sourced. Therefore, inclusion as part of a neutral point-of-view sentence (which I think this is) is warranted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the article link at the top of this section; You will notice that the President's IQ results favor the democratic side. If I could see more information that backs up this article then I would consider it. Also mispronunciations do not prove anything concerning IQ's. --User:William Amadio 22:11, 19 October 2006

The article does not claim that mispronunciations are proof of his IQ anywhere, they are two seperate issues that simply follow each other in the article. Also, the story you refer to is not as reference in this article. For more information on the IQ story, see Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. Most of that information was, however, deliberately left out of this article (see previous discussions on the topic). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the information makes this article look clumsy and POVish. It's unencyclopedic. --Homecomputer∴Peace 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The information is here because there has been a peer-reviewed study about the subject [3]. For more info see Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the website is complete BS I love how the article says Clinton and Carter are genuises and the two presidents Bush are retarded, and regean is barely average, althougt the latter 3 have agurably better records professionally and politicaly than the former 3. That and the website has the word "urbanlegend" in it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno-Etile (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That website is BS, it is a hoax and s clearly described as such in all articles (and even has its own article: U.S. Presidents IQ hoax). The real study is this: [4]. For more info see Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the article written about that study of presidential IQ's is not just some ranting right-wing conservative? I am not insinuating that it is, but if you doubt the legitimacy of the study, then you must also doubt the article written about it. The study looked at all of the right aspects to determine someones IQ, it was not just a total bush-bash, so don't be so quick to doubt it. Besides, do you have any proven information about presidential IQ's to the contrary of this study? --Calard 8:34, 26 October 2006

It looks to me like Eno-Etile mixed up the IQ hoax from a few years ago with the real study, so unless he/she clearly states that he/she has a problem with the real study, we shouldn't bother too much at this point. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a real study ? Prove it. All I know is you don't just graduate an ivy league school and, then have a successful political career if you're mentally disabled. No one has yet linked a real study the only link I'm seeing is from the hoax site.Eno-Etile 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Errr... You do if you happen to: a) be very rich; b) be an ex-president's son; c) have a horde of aides around you telling you what to do and say. Do you really believe they even looked at his grades when they accepted him at Yale? yandman 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush's grandpa was CT senator, and the name Bush swung a lot of weight around New Haven, even regardless of George Senior. Bush was also in the last class that got in to Yale before they redid the admissions to remove things like explicit preferences for children of notable families. To get a good picture of where Bush stood on entering Yale, Bush scored 1206 on the SAT; according to "The Shape of the River" by William Bowen and Derek Bok, about half the black affirmative action admissions have a SAT score of 1200 or higher. Of course, Bush was coming from a rich family and an exclusive prep school, the black kids were often coming from dirt poor and/or badly dysfunctional families and some of the worst schools in the world. Gzuckier 16:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Look up a few sentences. Hint: It's preceded by the apt phrase "The real study is this."  :) --ElKevbo 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The real study is this: [5]. For more info see Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. And please note I gave this exact reply a to your post of 23 October above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW: no one is claiming Bush is mentally disabled. The article only states that people have questioned whether his intellect (which is undoubtly well above average) is enough to be president. It is a fact that people have questioned this (check the sources in the article). No info on the real study or the hoax are in this article, so what are we talking about here. You will only find them both mentioned in Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

National Debt under Bush Administration

The following table displays the national debt, per year, under the Bush Administration:

09/30/2005

$7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004

$7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003

$6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002

$6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001

$5,807,463,412,200.06

The National Debt, as of 10/12/06 is : 8,546,104,778,895.72

This illustrates a growth of the National Debt from $5,728,195,796,181.57 June 2002

Ceiling Raised to:$6.40 trillion

May 2003

Ceiling Raised to:$7.38 trillion

November 2004

Ceiling Raised to:$8.18 trillion

March 2006

Ceiling Raised to: $9 Trillion

DigitalCatalyst 17:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Robert Dziekan

And? You want it included? You just want to point it out? Information in the article is wrong? Not covered? AuburnPilot^Talk 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I move for inclusion of this material in the main article, either under economic policy or under an independant heading following economic policy. I believe this information is critical in encapsulating the overall effects of his economic policy

DigitalCatalyst 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting data, to be sure, but wouldn't it be better placed in the article on United States public debt? I think article on George W. Bush might legitimately have a descriptive section on the American economy during his term, but not tables of raw economic data. 82.30.240.197 14:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - no tables. Further, there must be very noteable, verifiable information (interviews, public statements, academic papers, etc. from economists) linking this administration to these or any other numbers or economic indicators. For us as Wikipedia editors to look at these numbers, conclude that Bush has screwed up the economy, and write that into the article would definitely be original research. --ElKevbo 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article in a while, and I see that there's been a major effort to scrub it of information that Bush admirers would prefer to suppress. The current version barely alludes in passing to "record budget deficits" without giving any further information. The huge fiscal turnaround is one of the most important aspects of the Bush administration. It was covered much better a year ago. In going back through the history I happened upon the August 5, 2005 version; I haven't looked at earlier and later ones to say that this one is the best, but it's certainly vastly better than the current text:

During his first term Bush sought and obtained Congressional approval for three major tax cuts, which increased the standard income tax deduction for married couples, eliminated the estate tax, and reduced marginal tax rates, and are scheduled to expire a decade after passage. Bush has asked Congress to make the tax cuts permanent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2003 these tax cuts had reduced total federal revenue, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to the lowest level since 1959. [6]

The effect of the tax cuts and simultaneous increases in spending was to create record budget deficits out of a record surplus, in less than one term. In the last year of the Clinton administration, the federal budget showed an annual surplus of more than $230 billion. [7] Under Bush, however, the government returned to deficit spending. The annual deficit reached record current-dollar levels of $374 billion in 2003 and $413 billion in 2004, though as a percentage of GDP these deficits are lower than the post-World War II record set under the Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s. [8], [9]

In an open letter to Bush in 2004, more than 100 professors of business and economics at U.S. business schools ascribed this "fiscal reversal" to Bush's "policy of slashing taxes - primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution". [10] Bush's supporters have countered that, primarily because of the doubling of the value of the child tax credit, "7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts." [11]

This presents the key information without tables, and it satisfies ElKevbo's correct observation that we as editors shouldn't draw a link between the policies and the deficits, but that we should quote a prominent spokesperson for that view. JamesMLane t c 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Torture

Despite repeated claims from president bush that "We do not torture,"[12], his administration has repeatedly tried to stop all attempts at limiting torture, [13], also the pentagon has claimed that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat to security, [14] while many individuals, who are only claimed to be supporting terrorist organizations, are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight, more often know as Extraordinary rendition. [15] More alarmingly the united states congress passed a resolution on September 14 2001 stating that

the President is authorized to use 'all' necessary and appropriate 'force' against those nations, organizations, or persons 'he' determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

easily allowing legal leeway to allow the president to give orders

of torture. [16]

There have been dozens of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan killed at the hands of interrogators. Yet there have been almost no significant punishments for those who engaged in the torture, and no significant high military ranking arrests. [17]

The administrations use of torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.

---

inappropriate, informal tone, not encyclopedic, doesnt belong in this article

User:AuburnPilot

Many of the things above have led to the movement to impeach George W. Bush of which is all related to Bush. How is this not appropriate? All these paragraphs are directly related to Bush and therefore does belong in this article. I can accept the fact that it may be written in an informal tone, but I have cited all necessary sources. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You may think it is relevant to the article, but may I suggest that you step back and take a wider view. If you treat Wikipedia as a soapbox for your personal opinions you are only building up trouble for yourself. --Jumbo 06:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Opinion?

FACTS:

• Bush states he does not condone torture
• Bush Administration fights to block torture restricting laws.
• Prisoners are being tortured to death
• No one of importance (high ranking (military/civilian) official) is being charged with war crimes, or any other form of crime for that matter.

You can not dispute the truth of a fact. You may claim that they are not fact, but I've cited my sources and they are reliable (to most).

How is any of this personal opinion(other than the More alarmingly the part)? While it can not be proven that Bush is giving orders to torture, the overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence is enough for any individual to have doubts about Bush's statements to the contrary. There may exist classified documents that prove that Bush did not have a hand in the orders of torture, but until the time comes when these documents become declassified the doubters will remain.

I can condone torture for maybe one or two individuals of whom involvement is absolutely certain when it pertains to national security, but their actions should be public for all to weigh in balance with all that is just and known to be true.

The More alarmingly the part of the original is unnecessary and I agree that is mostly my personal opinion, I apologize.

trouble for yourself--Jumbo nope thats why I call myself the --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 09:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I've been quoted above, I figured I'd respond. This information is definitly not NPOV. While it may be acceptable in an article about torture, accusations of torture, or controversies of GWB, it does not belong in his living bio. AuburnPilot^Talk 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Never said it was a perfect contribution, I definitely am not a great writer. Great we can agree that it's not perfect encyclopedic quality. However if my contributions and criticisms are not even relevant to Bush then the "received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandals," section must be removed from the opening paragraph, as it is not an actual topic of this article (except for the "on the Iraq War," part, but you get my point). I will move my discussion to the main Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush article, before continuing here, seeing as how torture is not mentioned a single time in that article. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just remember to keep WP:NPOV in mind; when people point things out, [18], they are not "bullying" you, but trying to help you become familiar with some of the policies and guidelines. AuburnPilot^Talk 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to this where the actual comment took place, as it is not relevant to President Bush. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The real question is what is the deffinition of torture? To some, like the Europeans, it's anything that would break the person's mental, physical, or emotional will to get information out of them. To lesser devoloped countries, it's cutting off fingers, tongues, etc.. So let's figure out what we mean by torture, then figure out if Bush did it and can be punished by our law, not U.N. or European law. - User:Dace48 October 23rd, 2006 10:24 CPT.

Illiterate?

Maybe a reference should be made to the rumor that he is illiterate. One reference is Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, which provides evidence for his accusation of him being illiterate, including the "hungry caterpillar" incident. PureLegend 19:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are for verifiable fact; not rumors. AuburnPilot^Talk 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And Michael Moore is hardly a reliable source. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Every paragraph of the introduction, after the first belongs in the body of the article. They can serve as introductory paragraphs to his elections, criticism, etc. Intro's should be short and general. This one isn't. Ramsquire 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The top section should adhere to WP:LEAD. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the article should also be easy to follow. With all that detail in the intro it makes for an awful read. For example

" He was re-elected as governor of Texas in 1998. Bush won the 2000 presidential election as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest. Although he did not secure a majority of the popular vote, he did win the number of electoral votes after a very close battle in the state of Florida. As President, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program and the No Child Left Behind Act, and has made efforts to privatize Medicare and Social Security. Bush has also pushed for socially conservative efforts such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, faith-based welfare initiatives, the Palm Sunday Compromise and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment."

can simply be re-written as

"He was re-elected Governor of Texas in 1998. Bush won the GOP nomination for President in 2000, and went on to win the Presidency in a close and controversial contest. He became the third President to win a President election without winning a majority of the popular vote."

the policy stuff could then just go into the body of the article under first term. Just my two cents to improve the article. Ramsquire 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Ramsquire. Most of the information in the intro is completely redundant with details that follow in the body of the article, and it goes beyond the basics set out under WP:LEAD. I propose simplifying as per Ramsquire's example. SlipperyN 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the introductory material could be effectively reduced and that the entry would thereby be considerably improved. Benzocane 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes discussed here. I only found 2 minor details in the cut material that were not in the body of the article (Bush as only president to have an MBA, and the meaning of 'arbusto'. I added these details to the Early Life section. SlipperyN 13:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the movement of the MBA fact from the intro. As I discussed before, the fact that Bush is the first President to hold an MBA makes it a distinguishing characteristic of the President, and it belongs in the Intro. Examples of things in various intros to support this:

• Abraham Lincoln: first Republican President
• FDR: only President to server more than 2 terms
• Gerald Ford: only President to never be elected
• William Clinton: 12 years as governor
• Jimmy Carter: winner of Nobel Prize
• Woodrow Wilson: A devout Presbyterian; created the League of Nations
• Ronald Reagan: oldest person to be President
• William Howard Taft: only President to have served on the Supreme Court
• William McKinley: assasinated (even that is a distinguishing characteristic)
• Grover Cleveland: only President to serve two non-consecutive terms

I could go on, but I think this shows quite well that even little things are important in the intro. The fact that this fact is not mentioned in the body of the article underscores this. -GreyGh0st 16:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that a few of those examples are of facts which are much more interesting and important than Bush's MBA. And the others are merely examples of facts I would similarly oppose in the intro of an article. I remain unconvinced that this belongs in the intro. Sorry! --ElKevbo 17:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the distinguishing characteristic regarding the MBA IS still mentioned. I just moved it to the early history section rather than the introduction. Plenty of other potential distinguishing characteristics, and putting them in the intro is unnecessary. SlipperyN 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that some of these other facts are more interesting, and I am not merely arguing for the sake of arguing, I am merely trying to highlight what I think is an important characteristic that really sets him apart from other presidents. This MBA fact may seem mundane, but a graduate level degree (from Harvard even) in business management and decision-making definately makes a difference as opposed to a law degree, or nuclear physics (Carter, possibly did not finish degree, but if he did, it should be in his intro too... ) or History. I'm just saying that the fact is not mundane unless you bury it in the article. -GreyGh0st 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What about other Bush originals like being the only president to plead guilty to a DUI? Only president to have had ownership of an MLB team? Etc. What makes one of these points more worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraph? Having this in the intro because it seems to you to give him more intellectual credibility smells like POV to me. SlipperyN 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the article really need two foreign policy sections?

Number 1 Number 2

Sorry, I don't have the time to edit this, but I thought it deserves being fixed. Mozzie 06:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They are listed under the according two terms of GWB, so it appears to make sense. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If it has a section for each term, it needs two FP sections, I think. Benzocane 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I see that may need changing is the word policy/policies. It seems the first term uses policies (plural) for Domestic, Foreign, and Economic while the second term uses Policy (singular). Unifomity is nice. AuburnPilot^Talk 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, folks, and particularly AuburnPilot for clarifiying the issue. I standardized all sections to "...Policy" (since what we're talking about is "policy" in the sense of a unified approach to all domestic or all foreign affairs). I also shrank some of the second-term headers to conform to the first-term style precedent. Cyrusc 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

npov Afghanistan

I am going to remove "successful" from the line "Following the successful overthrow of the Taliban" (in First term/foreign policy/wars subsection). "Overthrow of the Taliban" is npov and factual. "Successful" strikes me as misleading, given that the number of foreign troops in Afghanistan has more than tripled since 2003, and that NATO is calling for increased int'l participation in the face of the region's ongoing violence. Cyrusc 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the edit. Even without your explanation, generally, I don't like the use of words like "succesful" in articles. Let historians decide the success of matters, not Wiki editors. Ramsquire 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Also concerned about how this article treats the war in Afghanistan as if it were over and done with. NATO soldiers continue to die in Taliban and Al-Qaeda attacks and the fighting in Southern Afghanistan continues to worsen. Don't we need at least a paragraph about this? An encyclopedia entry on a president can't ignore an entire ongoing war that was a defining moment in his presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawls2000 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

I don't see that. Any sourced paragraph you have about that should go into the respective articles about that conflict. Again, let history decide what this President's defining moment is, not Wiki editors. Ramsquire 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsquire that the bulk of the information should go into the articles specific to the questions in conflict, but it seems clear that there is currently an inequality in this article: major issues like Katrina have a subsection while the war in Afghanistan receives very little text. What about dividing the 'wars' section into subsections--this would both give the opportunity for a brief encapuslation of the conflicts in question (and links to the main entries) and increase readability. What do others think?Benzocane 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. Be bold. Ramsquire 21:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Ramsquire and others--I've gone ahead and given Afghanistan its own section, though I made it as concise as possible. In order to accommodate the change, I made "wars" a separate heading from "foreign policy." Does that work for everyone? Cyrusc 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's exactly what we needed.Benzocane 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

2nd Term - Foreign Policy

"Iraqi elections were held in January and December 2005, as well as in a referendum to approve a constitution. Initial media reports of high voter turnout appear to have overestimated actual turnoutm." Little error there. Figured I'd point it out. New014 3:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

signing statements?

shouldn't there be a section on his unprecedented use of signing statements? he has issued i think more signing statements than all past presidents combined. (or something like that).

it's pretty signifigant but it's not in this article nor in the domestic policy article.

Bush considers changing tactics in Iraq

Oct. 20: President Bush acknowledges that "staying the course" in Iraq is not working and says he will consider a possible change in tactics in the war. (source: NBC) Shall we include this? Or include this in the Iraq War? 71.236.225.50 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This relates naturally to the Iraq War FIRST and to Pres. Bush SECOND. Only notable consequences of the statement and only those that are related specifically to Pres. Bush AND that are verifiable should make it into this article.--Gkklein 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay FIRST OFF you moron this WILL be in the article, IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? For one this is notable info since he was so reluctant to stay on course on the Iraq war even though 61/62% of America think otherwise, so now he is finally doing it. ALSO seconed off, this is verifiable, again it's on NBC news. GO to their website for more info. Or google it. You guys got THREE DAYS to put this in, or that's it. I will —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.225.50 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Picaroon9288 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tet Offensive comment

Some people have tried to insert the Tet Offensive comment by President Bush. While it may be some what of an accurate comparison of Tet to Iraq. It actually shows that President Bush knows history. The Tet Offensive was a propaganda victory for the Vietcongs, not a military victory. And it's showing to be the same case in Iraq today where the media has been playing the "Insurgency are winning in Iraq". However that's not the case. There are areas in Southern Iraq and Northern Iraq that are quiet. The province where the media focuses on is the Al Anbar Province & Baghdad which is quite not so peaceful compare to the rest of Iraq. So I suggest people don't overdo on the Tet Offensive comment by President Bush. ViriiK 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The White House did clarify about that though, that was in the source that I've inserted. Although could have been put in the (including clarification by the WH) War in Iraq article maybe as well as the Alberto Fernandez critics (arrogance and stupidity) on the mission. Although we may compare with Vietnam in regards of casualties instead of the Tet event (at least over 10 000 deaths in total) although there was a biz flewing that it was well over that (heard something like 600 000 or something)--JForget 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Alberto Fernandez does not belong in there since it's not his biography but rather President Bush. You're just adding it there because it attack Bush's commitment to Iraq thus can be viewed as bias. Casualties in regard to Vietnam and Iraq are still not quite comparable. The order of half a million troops came before Tet Offensive. Whereas casualties skyrocketed as the US Operation became more and more expanded in Vietnam while still being restricted by the Johnson Administration's policy of intervention into the North. At this rate in Iraq, casualties would go as high as 7,000 KIA in the same number of months (13 years). The Tet Offensive however had 4,324 KIA vs the Vietcong's 50,000 plus in a single offensive. ViriiK 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyoto

As far as I know, Bush has not withdrawn from the treaty (and this is supported by the Kyoto article) Nil Einne 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The treaty was never ratified by Congress although Clinton may have signed it. Especially when they demanded timetables and total participation with a vote of 95-0 in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution [19] ViriiK 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

guard service footnote questionable

the supporting documentation for his guard service... is wholely one sided... and it doesn't bother to address, for instance, the details that are in conflict, instead, it implies that the issue is that he didn't rack up enough flight hours, then, mindblowingly, it proves something... that the opposition doesn't contest, while ignoring just about every detail that is actually controversial. amazingly, it notes, that for the first 80 weeks, when he was doing full time flight training, he had flight hours in spec with someone... and this'll shock the stuffing out of the democratic attack machine... that doesn't mention this, who was training full time to become a national guard pilot... who'd a thought, when democrats, and republicans alike agreed that his training was par for the course, that his training, was par for the course. and my point is, that the quality of the linked article, is such, that every "revelation" that the author "reveals" is just as unexpected, in that it doesn't discuss the missing documents.

What missing documents? If you're refering to the Killian Documents, it was a fake. ViriiK 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is why

This is exactly why this page is being disabled. People just keep posting their completly biased opinions. Whether it's for or against Bush, it's just as bad as advirtising. --Cronic liar 22:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples from the article that we can address/rewrite, or are you referring to this talk page? Or something else? AuburnPilot^Talk 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it would be good if examples could be cited, then I can start to understand what he is saying. --SunStar Net 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden

I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in the main Clinton article. By contrast, this main article for Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact that Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

This new trivia section is a bit worrisome. While WP:NOT doesn't say much, or anything actually, about trivia, these sections tend to be a breading ground for useless information. WP:TRIVIA is neither a guideline nor policy, but it has some good points. If the section stays, it needs to be carefully scrutinized. I like the idea given in the guideline avoid trivia sections in articles. It states that such sections should not necessarily be removed on sight, but used as a temporary (not permanent) list of information that should be worked into the article. It goes on to say that once the information is included in the article, and the list is empty, the section should be removed. Any thoughts? AuburnPilot^talk 22:27, 30 October 2006 _(UTC)

I couldn't agree more and suggest that we remove it. It's far from 'encyclopedic' and it also takes up valuable space.Benzocane 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What new possible data if any

What new and well sourced possible data if any at all even really exists has emerged through Wikipedia concerning Osama who (if alive ?) is to turn 50 years old on what is to be March 10th of 2007. And what new and fresh data if any has surfaced and emerged on George Walker Bush of who is to be 61 years old on July 06th of 2007 in his exhaustive and unrelenting hunt on terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? yandman 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Better Picture for Economic Policy

The photograph of Bush talking to the vp from Air Force One on 9/11 is, in my opinion, an excellent photograph. But it doesn't have anything to do with economic policy. Perhaps a more relevant one could be used instead?

My bad

alright now i'm back and it was my mastake. bush is not a sith lord but a vampire. in 2012 he will take over the world you may not choose to beleve me bot it's true i can save you all if you all just listen to me. DO NOT DELETE THIS MESAGE IT IS NOT VANDILISM. BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!! BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!! BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOUBUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!! RSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!!BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!!BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!!BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!!BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!!BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!! BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HBUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!! AS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!!BUSH IS THE DEVEL AND WILL EAT U ALL-WATCH YOURSELF-HES A CANIBLE AND HAS BEEN KNOW TO RAPE!!!!!