Talk:George W. Bush

Template:V0.5 Template:Todo priority

"War President" restored

I have restored a minor note which was in the article a few months ago. Since it refers to a description made by Bush of the nature of his own presidency, it seems highly relevant & noteworthy to me. I can't begin to image why it was removed & could find no mention of it on the talk page. Kasreyn 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It belongs in the article. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is taken rather out of context. The quote was, "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true." This indicates a focus on war issues, not an affirmation of war. The "war president" mention in the article implies that Bush considers himself pro-war -- this creates a rather negative connotation which is not very consistent with the intended meaning in the interview. --The Other Other 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War section

The Iraq War section is listed under the President's first term, but much of the information it contains carries over into the sceond term. Any suggestions as to how it should be organized? Jpers36 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Economic Policy

The Economic Policy section is only three paragraphs? Would anyone mind filling it up with some more info? Fephisto 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. The three paragraphs in the article are only for the first term. If you want to add more information (which is certainly possible and likely desireable), please do so in a new or different article. This one is already very long. I also don't think that particular section needs more detail although it might be better served by different details. --ElKevbo 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Ferrell and Will Forte, and maybe Will Sasso

I've always thought it was a severe deficiency of this article to not even mention Will Ferrell. As for Family Guy, it is very important because it is one of the few animated shows to criticize Bush directly. The Simpsons does so in disappointingly oblique ways (e.g., "Commander Cuckoo-Bananas"). Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This material is not at all notable to George W. Bush's bio and it should in no way be included in the article. I am against it 100%. -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances should any of this trivia be included in the article, and I will personally take it to arbitration if the revert war continues. --Iriseyes 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird threat of the year award contender. Gzuckier 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I know they want us to keep our speeches short, so I just want to thank my mom, my dad, my husband (you are my guiding light! I love you baby!) and my computer, for providing me with this incredible award. Oh, is that the orchestra? Well, I guess they want me to cut this shorter. Thank you, Wikipedia Academy! --Iriseyes 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick mention of criticism and popular culture critique wouldn't be a problem, but if we dwell on it and provide every example of criticism, it becomes non-notable and a case-in-point of weasel words and POV pushing (if you want an example of how "including all information" can turn into a case of POV pushing, try Reforms under Islam (610-661)#Animals). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer we shorten the article as it is before including even more trivia. --Iriseyes 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to have an article titled Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, which would include both dramatic and comedic works, as well as anything else? We could then provide a link to that on this article, most likely not in the criticism section but somewhere else. Jpers36 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually really like this idea. It lets the trivia party write what they like, and keeps this article clean and the anti-trivia group satisfied. Could one of the advocates of the trivia section please spearhead this? --Iriseyes 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's an excellent suggestion and the proposed article could turn out to be very interesting and informative. --ElKevbo 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best solution. (Personally, I feel that Wikipeida too often starts out with something reasonable like "George Bush is often portrayed in the media as ....." and ends up with a list of 250 items like "In St. Mary's Day Care of Winnetka Illinois 2005 Christmas pageant, the King Herod was wearing a Bush mask".Gzuckier 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Fictionalized portrayals of Woodrow Wilson? 2nd Piston Honda 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sounds good to me. I'd like to see how Wilson has been portrayed fictionally, both during his tenure as President and in the time since. Fictionalized portrayals of Abraham Lincoln would be very interesting as well. Fictionalized portrayals of Millard Fillmore, on the other hand, may not receive much content. Jpers36 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia's systematic anti-Fillmore bias rears its ugly head again... --ElKevbo 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mallard Fillmore Gzuckier 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really wasted effort at Wikipedia. Kasreyn 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The false authority of Wikipedia makes us take ourselves too seriously. But hey, Wikipedia is a better time waster than most. --Iriseyes 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap. I was just about to turn in a paper on Fictionalized portrayals of Millard Fillmore. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be the proposed "fictionalized portrayals of..." articles proposed for those modern era presidents and a few of the more famous ones from the past (e.g., Washington, Lincoln). But in every case, the main article should mention the most important of these. SNL and Family Guy are probably the most important in Bush's case. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is going to inform the folks who fictionally portray George Bush, then, that we have decided that their work is in no way notable? Gzuckier 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you believe it is notable, please, create an article about the topic. It is not, however, notable to George W. Bush's life or career. This is a WP:BIO of George W. Bush and this content does not in any way better a reader's understand of Bush. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I enlarged above, I don't think the kind of list of every portrayal of Bush ever that Wikipedia specializes in would be appropriate here, but well summarized NONPOV sentence or two might be useful, then i suppose a link to the inevitable list. Gzuckier 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since none of the pro-trivia people could be bothered, I started the page that was suggested. I pasted in (and fixed up) all the information that kept being reverted and re-reverted, but it's a very short article, so if anyone would like to keep adding info onto it, please do. Is this conflict resolved, then? --Iriseyes 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't call someone you can't claim they "could not be reached for comment." Some of us spend some of our waking hours offline. Anton Mravcek 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I should be doing right now, I have a calc test in an hour. Thank you for reminding me. --Iriseyes 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of the Movement to impeach George W. Bush

This was debated before and it does push a POV. AuburnPilot^Talk has stated "Since I've been quoted above, I figured I'd respond. This information is definitly not NPOV." Also it doesn't need to be inserted again because it's already covered in the category section of George_W._Bush. ViriiK 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To what "category section of George_W._Bush" are you referring? The current version of the article doesn't appear to have any such category.

And exactly why is including another Wikipedia article in the "See also" section a problem? It's clearly directly related to this article. If the included article is so bad then it needs to be cleaned up or deleted. Otherwise, what's the problem? --ElKevbo 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to category section of the page. Click "George W. Bush" or [1] and it's right there. ViriiK 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Right in front of my nose... --ElKevbo 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't seem to find the word "impeach" once in the main article. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiding widely held criticism in a category section that many new users will not see is definitely a violation of npov. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite your argument, I've already stated that this is covered in the category section. Go to the bottom of the page, click "George W. Bush" and it'll take you right there. Also your insertion of the public perception is already repeated and does not need to be thus injecting POV because you can easily find the link at the bottom of the page. ViriiK 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the link exists in the category page. However, If I used your logic I would have to remove the entire "see also" section, because there all listed in the harder to find category page. I believe most people would prefer to have a simple list, rather than having to go to another category link, (it is my understanding that "Categories", "See also", and "external links", all have there own distinct usage, but thats not to say that what they cover won't overlap.) I do agree with you on removing the second public perceptions link (ironically that is what my intentions were, seems I missed the other link) --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important to you? His public criticism is already covered. If there was a real impeachment proceeding, then it would become relevant. Until then, it's just rumors that supposedly it will happen. In every administration, there was always an impeachment threat for every certain thing. But the problem is it's a hypothetical scenario and not factual. Most of the impeachment argument I've read are not based on factual findings but rather personal opinions and skewed interpretations of facts. Just like for example the argument the President will supposedly be prosecuting American Citizens under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 when in fact the law doesn't assert such findings. However people did edit it to skew that viewpoint that supposedly you only need to be found "unlawful enemy combatant" and not an alien to be tried under the Commission. But I had to edit it to fix that viewpoint because whoever edited it before was not basing it on facts. This is an encyclopedia based on facts. Not opinions. It's just like there was some vandal recently that kept trying to insist that GWB's religion was supposedly Skull and Bones and not the United Methodist. There's this question I also got for you. How is the "movement to impeach" affecting GWB's job in anyway? As far as I've seen, it isn't nor should he care about it. Despite the fact Representative Conyers came out with his own report, it still was not a document and thus becomes irrelevant in any investigation. ViriiK 10:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Texas National Guard, versus Texas Air National Guard

On True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai, regarding the Japanese in the Second World War, 1941, on History Channel, I heard that some of the first Americans captured were in Dutch East Indies {&/or Malaya | Singapore}, for the Texas Guard {Tejas Guard?}. I suppose that the Air Guard would have been created a few years later.

The actual river is "Tamarkan". Japanese for [number] five is "go". The Japanese pronounced "speed-up" as "speedo".

It is currently on, & from 1100 - 1300, Pacific, 1900 - 2100, zulu time.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedo is just a transliteration of speed. I'm a little confused as to the direction of the comment, though. Dekimasu 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

unlock it

even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178

why?

There is no reason to unlock it, this is the most vandalised article on Wikipedia...Most of the IP edits to this article is vandalism.__Seadog ^♪ 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the most vandalised article even when locked. --Majorly (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should not be unlocked. Each and every time it has been unprotected, it is re-protected within hours. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep it locked. Always.--Loodog 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should get a username and then you won't have to worry about semi-protected articles. Valley2city 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't. According to your user contributions and talk page, you are a repeat offender of vandalism. Valley2city 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV???

What is going on? Do we want criticism even included in this article? I have slowly seen negative material disappear from this article.

Criticism is mentioned in the introduction "he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, [.........]", yet the entire part in the main body of this article on criticism was removed.

If my interpretations are correct then I must call for *'ALL'* criticism to be only referenced in the "see also" section. Even though to me that goes against npov. And in fact this is already discouraged in the NPOV article, but arguments that criticism is so large that it needs a separate article, I can understand.

If we are going to separate criticism to a separate fork article then so be it, but then we must move *all* criticism to this article (e.g. Controversial acts, Hurricane Katrina, ...). No-one can say that one stance of criticism is unworthy of inclusion in the main article. At this point it is very unorganized, some criticism in the main article some not in the main article. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The usual approach, when a particular subject becomes too long to fit within the main article, is to move the information to a daughter article, but to leave a summary in the main article. We can't just say "there's been criticism, see the daughter article". Major points of criticism must be discussed in the article. JamesMLane t c 03:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why are we allowing the summary to be removed???? --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism articles are inherently POV forks and must be merged back in. I've tagged Criticism of George W. Bush for merging back into this article. theProject 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why were the criticisms removed? All of its content was verifiable, factual information. This article is now incomplete and biased. Any negative information was removed and now topics such as illegal NSA wiretaps simply aren't covered.

The quality of this article is no longer up to par with other high profile politicians. People can goto GOP.com or Foxnews.com for one sided information.