Talk:George W. Bush

George W. Bush official website

The website for the George W. Bush Presidential Center (GWB's personal website) http://www.georgewbushlibrary.com, should be listed in addition to the White House website on GWB's page. After 1/20/09, it should just list the Presidential Center's site.

deleted, what the hell does barrack obama have to do with bush

Criticism

How come there's no section on criticism, yet, on the vladimir putin page, there is. This shows wikipedia is clearly biased: either there should be criticism of everybody, or criticism of nobody? am I right? it's a clear double standard. I'm sure there's plenty to criticise bush on....219.79.53.187 (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Criticism of George W. Bush didn't fit the article - it got one on its own. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Very funny, but that's not true. Please see WP:CRITICISM. It is pretty consistent across Wikipedia political biographies that criticism sections intrude on WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Criticisms are interpersed throughout the article. Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there no article called Criticism of George W. Bush on your Wikipedia? Is the internet censored in your region? Poor you... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22 you say there's no section on criticism, it's included across the article, and this is in all wikipedia articles. but vladimir putin has a section, and a WHOLE ARTICLE on criticism. This seems to contradict what you say, does this mean I am allowed to delete the criticism article on Putin?

This shows that people are using wikipedia to put forward their pro-western political point of view. It's unacceptable. check the putin article, it's unacceptable219.78.14.77 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Criticism of George W. Bush covers the criticism, while this article represents the consensus of what has been agreed upon to be a neutral depiction of the man. Of course, consensus can change and you're welcome to make a case for any additional material you'd like to include.--Loodog (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just dropped by and I, too, was wondering why there was no section on criticism. Even if there is a separate article dealing with that, it's misleading there is not even a short summary on this page and a link to the criticism page. Also, I find the wording of this article way too positive for the worst president of modern times. True, this may be a controversial topic and opinions differ, but there is simply no way around the fact that, outside of the United States, Mr. Bush is/was simply the single most unpopular politician, which is not portrayed here in a sufficient manner. Why? Perplexing, sad -- definitely changed the way I look at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.94.97.242 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out part of the article. It deals with how Bush was viewed as President. Do you feel any changes to that part of the article are needed (keeping NPOV in mind)? SMP0328. (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush approval rating

The article states that Bush's approval rantings fell to 19%, yet the sources show Bush not falling below a 23-24% approval ranting.75.54.130.202 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source, which is in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval ratings are based on polls, so reports based on certain polls will differ from reports based on other polls. There's probably no "official" approval rating, and there's no telling that any of them are accurate anyway. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is under this line of logic, you can discredit any source that you do not feel is accurate. Fortunately Wikipedia has a policy for that. Wikipedia:Verifiability They are verifiable numbers from credible sources. Polling is a science even if you happen to disagree with it. RTRimmel (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is very important to those who want to make sure history is written "correctly" and that sentiments about the subject are etched in stone as soon as possible. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem being, of cource, that the sentiments about the subject will change over time making the "etching in stone" part unfair, impractical, and revisionist (in the future). Newguy34 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is that we have information now that comes from reliable sources and to discount all of it because it may be proven wrong in 20 years leaves us with very little to actually put in the article. If you've looked at the edit summaries of this article, nothing in here is etched in stone and as new information becomes available we can add it in. RTRimmel (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating it, just recognizing it. I agree that we go with what we have that is as current as possible. Given that, there is a statement in the current BLP about a "poll" taken in 2006 of 744 historians about how Bush's presidency has been regarded. I think it (and the remainder of that paragraph) is a candidate for either "freshening" up or removing given that it lacks current relevance. Newguy34 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A 'poll' containing 744 members professional historians and another including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners. Its the only professional academic opinion in the section right now. If you can find another poll with that many diplomas behind it I'd suggest replacing it but until we have one I don't see how we could. RTRimmel (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on now. 400 years ago many thousand academics thought the world was flat. Should we still include that information today? Newguy34 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? In 400 years things have been proven different? Okay. We are talking about 3 years. Its another apples to oranges comparison. We have a 400 year old theory vs the weight of current scientific theory and unsurprisingly current scientists think different. We have a 3 year old poll, and we don't have anything more current and both are likely to be using the same methodology to get their answers and its doubtful that there will have been a massive shift in their professional opinions. Instead of complaining that the poll is dated, find a current academic poll that has a bunch of diplomas behind it that says otherwise and your argument gets much more tenable, but right now it doesn't hold any water. RTRimmel (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A million diplomas wouldn't matter. The "same methodology" wouldn't matter. It's about reliable sources, remember? How do you know there isn't a more current poll? Newguy34 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked? Then I looked again. Did you find one? If so, again, please post it. The ones I found were less through than the first one and not statistically different enough in their results so I did not feel inclined to add them in. And the polls meets all of the requirements for verifiability and can be considered reliable as Wikipedia needs it to be additionally it is as reliable as many other cites on the page so that argument falls flat too. You are not adding anything to the quality of this article with your current logic so either find a good source that proves your argument or let it die. RTRimmel (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, what about my statement "I'm not advocating" are you unable to understand? If there is a more recent poll from a reliable source, I believe it should be substituted. "Less th[o]rough", you say? You don't get to decide on quality, so please watch the bias. As to the rest of what you wrote, I am unable to decipher your run-on sentence, and therefore incapable of adequately responding. That you are incapable of understanding my "logic" (it's not really my logic, but rather my assertion), is insufficient to declare that I am not adding to the quality of the article. Let's try to watch the POV, shall we? Please comment on the article and edits, not other editors. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have any other sources. Fine. And I always love the ad hominin followed by a discussion of an editors lack of bias and brilliant intellect (while making a yet another circular argument, so far you've done an apples to oranges comparison, an attack on the sources while providing no other sources to back it up, and then an attack on me) whereas the other editor is attempting to destroy both the article and Wikipedia as a whole, by saying to find a better source if you disagree with the one in the article. Any who, back to the original point. The paragraph is fine. The cites are fine. The sources are the most current. So, given a lack of any meaningful improvements offered by other editors, it sounds like it should stay. Thanks for the help. RTRimmel (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem?! Where? I see a hasty generalization with your comments about how I may be trying to claim that you are destroying Wikipedia. I also see a red herring by attempting to point out all the places you perceive me to have proferred logical fallicies. No matter how many times you throw up the proverbial and time-honored "there's another apples to oranges comparison" you are missing the point, with all due respect. Where in my comments have I attacked the source? Where in my comments have I made a circular arguement? Where in my comments have I said I lacked bias? Bias is fine, but the articles have to be free of bias (as much as possible). I suggest two doses of "read my comments more closely before you attribute statements to me that I did not make" and then let's get back to improving the article. I think most prudent people would agree that suggesting that there may be a more current source for some statement, is attempting to do just that. Newguy34 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, as promised, back to the article. The statement regarding the results of the poll seem fine, if that is the most current writing on the subject. But, the rest of the paragarph about the credentials of those polled is unnecessary and irrelevant. If the cite comes from a reliable source, then it is in. If it doesn't, then it is out. Simple as that, without all the "here's, reader, why you should believe this more than other polls that may get added to this article because it has a lot of historians with a lot of letters after their names." Wiki doesn't decide quality (as it related to this matter). Wiki doesn't decide truth. If the source is good, the cite should be able to stand on its own. Newguy34 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should properly represent the poll, which HNN states up front is "unscientific". To present it otherwise is highly misleading. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the article text already says that the polls in question were "informal", but to include the rest about the pedigreed historians seems to cut the exact opposite way. What does it add to the validity of the poll or relevance to the BLP? Newguy34 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because if you ask a room full of doctors about an infection you'll get a more accurate answer than if you ask a room full of the general population? A recent poll asked a question that amounted to "is intelligent design the reason that we are here" and 45% of Americans said yes, the same question asked to a room full of biologists got less than a 1% response (0% actually). So if you ask a group of historians what their opinion on a historical figure is, even informally, it carries more weight than with the general population who tend to be stupid and uninformed about a great number of things. Then again, if your average person could do a quadruple bypass while waxing nostalgic about the greater benefits of the Lincoln Presidency and giving tips on molecular biology, the world would be a strange place indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even sure where to go with this, so I'll give it the "huh?!" The poll was an opinion poll, which didn't ask for an expert analysis, just personal opinion. We could have asked a bunch of professional chefs, or a gaggle of CPA's and the fact that they were chefs or CPA's wouldn't matter. Let me be clearer since I sometimes get accused of making convoluted arguements that don't seem to make much sense on their face: When conducting an opinion poll, what matters (i.e., what is relevant) are the poll results, not the intelligence of those polled. Newguy34 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The intelligence of those polled directly affects the results and is therefor relevant. If you polled Arizona what they thought of the Steelers, you would anticipate different results than if you asked the same question in Pittsburg and that sort of information would have to be put into the article to give context to the results. So a poll of professional historians is going to have different results than a poll from the general us population and is therefor notable. RTRimmel (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you in all cases except when dealing with the highly-scientific matter of personal opinion. On that subject, we all get the same say, and we all (well, all who are US citizens) have valued input, which is no more and no less valuable than anyone else, including the professional historians. Newguy34 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So if you ask a doctor and a 3 year old their personal opinion on a disease, you should expect both to offer advise of the same value because both answers are just personal opinion and therefor have the same value(d input). No more and no less valuable than anyone else, including the professional historians doctors. Of course, we might ... (just maybe and its a stretch) say that the doctor may know a tad more than a toddler, about something in his field of study. Or we could go with the proven and true logic that all people have the valued input at the same level(excepting of course that any polling expert will tell you that that opinion is a load.) But a polling of doctors vs a polling of toddlers about something medical, as Newguy has pointed out, would have opinions that are are equally as valuable. An average US citizen would look at the results and think, "Hmmm. . . terible disease ravages midwest, the doctors say to get innoculated and the toddlers say crayons, both are equally valuable... I'll go crayons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cute attempt at an anology, by not exactly right. If we asked a doctor and a toddler for their personal opinion about the president, neither response is more credible than the other as it relates to their opinion. If we ask a toddler about their personal opinion of a disease, I suspect we'd get an answer a kin to "it's bad". If we ask a doctor for their personal opinion about a disease (as you suggest above), I suspect we'd also get an answer a kin to "it's bad", but if we asked the doctor for his opinion and expect to get advise [sic] (as you suggest) we are asking for their professional opinion. Much, much different than asking for their personal opinion, as I am hopeful you can appreciate. What we have here is a poll of personal opinion wrapped in some sort of engorged credibility because we asked "professionals" for their personal opinion. Newguy34 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just work with what you give me. You see, the problem I have with your basic assessment is that there was one personal opinion poll out of the 4 in the sources. Then there is an unscientific poll, its unscientific because the sample was allowed to choose itself and was made from a panel of what polsters would have considered experts, and then two unscientific surveys, which were also made up of experts. So bluntly saying that the whole thing is personal opinion is just your personal opinion. Unscientific polls are generally not as useful in a broad sense, but in a specific situation with specific questions their answers tend to be more accurate than a general poll. So, what you are suggesting that there are a bunch of guys sitting around the proverbial watercooler being asked some generic questions doesn't at all match up with 3 of the sources, though I'll grant the other sources is rather weak. Based on the articles and the questions answered in the articles, it looks like the historians were given pretty detailed surveys in at least two of the pools for ther professional opions, not their personal ones, and so you constantly hopping up on the personal opinion tree falls into the proverbial pile of monkey pooh. So they asked professional historians their professional opinions based on past trends of presidents (it says so in 2 of the artles) and therefor I'd assume, again this is just me reading the sources like your average lay person, that their professional opions were rendered. Just to be clear, its obvious in at least 3 of the sources their professional opinions on President Bush based on past presidents from a historical perspective rather than their personal ones. 173.88.18.30 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what you say is true, maybe not. But, we don't know whether it was personal opinion or academic insight, because all we have is what is written inside the four corners of the articles. But I would note for the record, that the biting critique quoted in the articles smell much more like personal opinion than they do like analysis (e.g., "He [Bush] has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal ideological adventurers..."). Hardly an objective, rational, academic view of the former president. Quoting another in the article who seems to have picked up on the crop of liberal historians grinding their collective arsenal of axes, "I suspect that this poll will tell us nothing about President Bush's performance vis-à-vis his peer group, but may confirm what we already know about the current crop of history professors." And, from another, "If historians were the only voters, Mr. Gore would have carried 50 states." So, I agree with the individual quoted in one of the sources who said, "until we have gained access to the archival record of this president, we [historians] are no better at evaluating it than any other voter." I think what we have been given to work with makes this plausible, at the least. Newguy34 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic data

In the article it's said "Inflation-adjusted median household income was flat while the nation's poverty rate increased", while in the source nothing of the sort's said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Its on page 18 of the source, it basically says that the adjusted income increased less than one percent (significantly less) and poverty increased several percentages. Anything less than a percent is considered flat in economic terms. I believe that the quote is lifted directly from somewhere in that 88 page document, but the document clearly supports the sentence that he included. If necessary I'll pop 3 or 4 more cites into the article that quote from that so that its more obvious but the short is the Economy didn't do very well under Bush. Whether or not that is Bush's fault is debatable, but the fact that is performed poorly is not. RTRimmel (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In the source it's said that the real median income between 2004 and 2005 increased by 1.1%. On page 20 it's said: "the official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2005." So the data in the article contradicts the source.Sasha best (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting bout of selective reading. The next sentence is "After 4 years of consecutive

increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005— higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available" Which seems to support the sources. I'll go out and find a simpler source that says the same thing if you dislike the official census pages so much. Since Bush's term is over, I'll get a 2000-2008 numbers as the current numbers are overly generous. RTRimmel (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is responsible for material edits to this page?

From time to time I have checked on this page and (at times) it seems to try to be honest with the facts. But other times I have to say it misses the mark.

A few years ago Mr. Bush's primary bio was accurate but it seems to have been changed. I'm just wondering why.

In my opinion there has been an ongoing attempt to paint this man as something of a "dunce" and minimizes his education and experience. To that end I would bring your attention to the missing reference to his Harvard education and post graduate degree in Business Administration.

I don't know about you, but Harvard is one of the hardest schools to get into, and the business schools if one of the hardest schools to get into at Harvard.

I think it would give a more accurate impression of the man's education if the reference to his FULL educational credentials be replaced in the primary bio rather than relegated to two words half way down the article.

Thank you, A. Renner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renner95634 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.
--A. Renner (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that GW Bush is not as dumb as some have made him out to be. A Harvard education is by no means a gimme, no matter who your father and grand father were. It comes down to linguistics sometimes. He sounds and speaks like the southerner he is. He is laid back in his articulation of the english language. Obama is just the opposite. Obama doesn't have a southern drawl, so he must automatically must be smarter than everyone else. My opinion is that Bush's education is very relevant to the article and should be readded.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel improvements need to be made to the article, I recommend you make them when you can. SMP0328. (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush is a southerner? Isn't he actually from Conneticut? The southern drawls is probably fake. While I agree he probably isn't as dumb as his words or his actions would leave you to believe, he is definitely at least trying to act dumb, and we should give him some credit for that, by portraying him as a dunce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.29.3 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush was born in Connecticut, but shortly afterwards (and at a very young age) was moved to Texas and raised there. I think that qualifies him as a southerner, without the trolling insults from 75.34.29.3 who seems to have both a spelling and a grammar problem. Newguy34 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Changes to Article

I’m suggesting a few changes to the third and fourth paragraphs of this article, as it appears biased. In the spirit of scholarly honesty, I’ll admit that I did support many of Bush’s policies, though I hope that fact has not clouded my judgment when making these suggestions. I believe they’re mostly grammatical suggestions—changing a word or phrase here and there that can be perceived as biased to something that is neutral.

Change: In addition to national security issues, President Bush attempted to promote policies on the economy, health care, education, and social security reform.

To: In addition to national security issues, President Bush promoted policies on the economy, health care, education, and social security reform.

Bush promoted policies; whether or not any or all of the promoted policies were acted upon doesn’t mean that they weren’t promoted. To say he “attempted to promote” policies is inaccurate.

Change: In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with the apparent failures of its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

To: In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with widespread criticism of its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

“apparent failures” seems entirely too biased, especially when the argument can be made that the federal government could not act before the state and local governments. “Widespread criticism” captures the public opinion of the administration’s actions (or lack thereof) without blatant appearance of bias.

Possible Change: and his administration took more direct control of the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages.

If we’re going to say “more direct control,” we need to cite a source stating why it is “more direct.” Specifically, “more direct” than what—previous administrations or his administration prior to that time? “More direct” implies that at some other point there was a less direct control, and such a statement needs to be cited.

Change: Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[10] his popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.[11][12][13][14][15]

To: For much of his first term, Bush was regarded as a popular president, obtaining at one point the highest approval rating of any US president [I believe that information is correct, but do correct me if I’m mistaken]. His popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.

The term “though” implies that his popularity is overshadowed by his unpopularity. In an unbiased article, that should be left for the reader to decide.

Finally, throughout the discussion (I haven’t scanned through the article for this), contributors have been using the phrase “Mr. Bush.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a former US president keep the title “President”? I understand many people don’t approve of his actions as president, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he was elected president (at least) once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.179.123 (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the first two changes you suggest, but the others might be worth a bit more discussion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Africa

The President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief should be mentioned in the article. i actually came to read this article to find out more about it but was surprised that this article had nothing !!! here's one source for a start http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Second-generation President

Is George W. the only President that was a child (or grandchild) or a former President? This is noteable historic trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.213.209 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams; Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You see, this just shows that students are not learning enough history.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush's Historical Ranking.

It is my belief, that due to the recent survey completed by CSPAN, we should ad the following to President Bush's wikipedia page.

Bush successfully ran for re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004, garnering 50.7% of the popular vote to his opponent's 48.3%. After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism.[5][6][7] In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with widespread criticism of its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession,[8] and his administration took more direct control of the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages. Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[9] his popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low. Bush has been ranked as one of the worst Presidents.

It says the same on many of the other President's pages who have also been ranked as the worst U.S. Presidents. Why should Bush be any diffenet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanshreds1 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that is not what we have agreed upon. There are many problems with your proposed addition:

1. First off, you don't have a source. I think you're referring to this and this, but just because it was advertised does not make it some magical, tell-all poll. It is an ordinary assessment done by 65 historians; it is not a public opinion poll, or anything of that like. That is not to say historians do not matter, but they should be given equal weight as public opinion polls, such as Gallup.
2. Your wording is subjective -- "by whom?" "when?" "why?" -- it doesn't answer any of those questions. A few weeks ago, I removed a lot of the polling information from the lead because it was not adhering to WP:LEAD, rather the entire last one-third of the lead was talking about polls. I agreed not to insert the "best" or "worst" clauses of the sentence because things need to be kept general (FYI, Bush received the highest approval ratings ever recorded in 2001).
3. The lead is supposed to generalize what is said in the article, not get bogged down in certain fields.

Perhaps we could mention the poll in the "public perception" section, but definitely not in the lead. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On top of all of that, the poll is way too recent. When I first saw the ballot, I was surprised that Bush was even on it. It usually takes time for these type of polls to become accurate. Recent presidents usually favor too high or too low in such polls. A similar poll done in the 1950's placed Harry Truman in the bottom rung, while he is top ten now. Go Figure. A poll done in the mid 60's had Kennedy much higher than he is today. My professional opinion is that the ranking is usually skewed for at least two generations. At that point, new historians come in and look at the situations with differant eyes.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, they changed methodologies in the intervening time and many of his policies actually played out. But fortunately, second guessing reliable sources and crystal balling deep into the future are two of the core pillars of Wikipedia so we can safely ignore this poll for 40 years or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Truman's rating by historians was always in the top 10 from what I remember. Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents give's his lowest place at #9 as of '62 and historians consistantly ranked him pretty well. It was Gallup and similar public opinion polls that are used to paint him in a bad light despite all of his hardship and achievements while in office. Gallup was also wrong on the whole Dewey Beats Truman results as well, using a flawed methodology. Its also not likly they changed that methodology between then and giving him the lowest approval number on record so take it for what its worth. So if you want to chose between a bunch of historian who use a standardized methodology and a public opinion with a known flawed methodology, be my guest. Check out Gallup bias, there are so many articles on it that I couldn't tell you which one to read, but the general consensis is that after Gallup's death in 84... the poll went signifigantly downhill. In the 2008 elections, it was high by 2.17% on average for the incumbant and one of the least accurate major polls, CNN was more accurate, and if you think about that the demonstrated margin of error for Gallup concerning Bush's approval ratings is greater than the different between his highest and the second highest approval rating but I digress. Second, I never agreed to do anything other that watch other editors continue to edit your attempt at the lead and the results are actually better than I anticipated with only 4 or 5 reverts so far in 3 weeks though I still feel that it whitewashes his acomplishments.

1. Truman's article ends with "At different points in his presidency, Truman earned both the highest and the lowest public approval ratings that had ever been recorded.[2][3][4] Despite negative public opinion during his term in office, popular and scholarly assessments of his presidency became more positive after his retirement from politics and the publication of Truman's memoirs. Truman's legendary upset victory in 1948 over Thomas E. Dewey is routinely invoked by underdog presidential candidates. Truman has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents. " So ours certinatly has a precident for ending it with a scholarly opinion if we are going to be throwing Truman's name around, one would think. RTRimmel (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You cite the 1962 poll, probably by looking it up on wikipedia no doubt. I remember a 1950's poll, that was taken. Give a chance and I will drudge it up.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So now we are questionging refrenced source from Wikipedia? If you can find the poll you might want to dump it on Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents and see if it passes their criteria as they are more up on polls than most.