Talk:George W. Bush: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:35, 12 September 2008

This washed up loser will be out of office in a few !

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+This washed up loser will be out of office in a few !
-{{User:MiszaBot/config
-|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
-|maxarchivesize = 200K
-|counter = 59
-|minthreadsleft = 5
-|algo = old(14d)
-|archive = Talk:George W. Bush/Archive %(counter)d
-}}<!--
--->{{warning|This article, [[George W. Bush]], has frequently become the subject of controversies and criticisms regarding his presidency. While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on George W. Bush. '''This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.'''}}<!--
--->{{skiptotoctalk}}<!--
--->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
-|target=Talk:George W. Bush/Archive index
-|mask=Talk:George W. Bush/Archive <#>
-|leading_zeros=0
-|indexhere=yes}}<!--
--->
-{{ArticleHistory
-|action1=GAN
-|action1date=2006-01-27, 08:53:00
-|action1result=listed
-|action1oldid=36917100
-|action2=GAR
-|action2date=2006-02-24, 01:10:33
-|action2result=delisted
-|action2oldid=40942684
-|action3=FAC
-|action3date=00:43, 27 February 2006
-|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush/archive1
-|action3result=not promoted
-|action3oldid=41378601
-|action4=PR
-|action4date=08:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/George W. Bush/archive1
-|action4oldid=50550156
-|action5=GAN
-|action5date=2007-02-13, 15:19:14
-|action5result=listed
-|action5oldid=107807239
-|topic=Socsci
-|currentstatus=GA
-}}<!--
--->{{talkheader}}<!--
--->{{WPBS|collapsed=yes|activepol=yes|blp=yes|1=
-{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=GA|priority=top|politician-work-group=yes|activepol=yes|listas=Bush, George W.|nested=yes}}
-{{WPMILHIST|class=GA|US=yes|Biography=yes|Aviation=yes
-<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
-|B-Class-1=yes
-<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
-|B-Class-2=yes
-<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
-|B-Class-3=yes
-<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
-|B-Class-4=yes
-<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
-|B-Class-5=yes
-|nested=yes}}
-{{Baseball-WikiProject|class=A|importance=low|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Connecticut|class=GA|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Texas|class=GA|importance=High|nested=yes}}
-{{USP-Article|class=GA|nested=yes}}
-{{WP1.0|class=GA|category=Socsci|v0.5=pass|WPCD=yes|importance=top|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=A|importance=top|nested=yes}}
-}}<!--
--->{{pressmulti|collapsed=yes|author=[[John J. Miller]] |date=2008-04|url=http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWM4Nzc3ODk3NDQxYWYyMjMzZjQ3NzEzM2JkMzM1OTk= |title=Liberal Web |org=[[National Review]] |section=April 2008}}<!--
--->{{AutoArchivingNotice
-|small=yes
-|age=14
-|index=./Archive index
-|bot=MiszaBot I}}<!--
--->{{FAOL|small=yes|Astur-Leonese|ast:George Walker Bush|lang2=Slovak|link2=sk:George W. Bush|lang3=Swedish|link3=sv:George W. Bush}}<!--
--->{{maintained|small=yes|[[User talk:AuburnPilot|AuburnPilot]], [[User talk:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]], [[User talk:MONGO|MONGO]], [[User talk:Shanes|Shanes]], [[User talk:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]], [[User talk:Solumeiras|Solumeiras]]}}
-== Nobel Peace Prize Nomination ==
-Mentioning that Bush was nominated twice (by a single right-wing Norwegian politician) and failed to win the Nobel Prize doesn't seem notable to me.  Anyone can nominate anyone for the prize to my understanding...as in I could nominate him for the Prize too.  If these nominations were serious, then perhaps we should mention them, but there just doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable  about that Norwegian politician's nominations.  Anyone else for removal of this content? [[User:Dwr12|Dwr12]] ([[User talk:Dwr12|talk]]) 08:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
-I agree.  Jimmy Carter actually won the Nobel Prize.  That deserves mention.  Let's wait and see if "W" ever accomplishes that. [[User:Jay Gregg|Jay Gregg]] ([[User talk:Jay Gregg|talk]]) 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
-:I am gonna put a mention of Razzie award for worst actor then. (Fahrenheit 9/11)<br>
-Not to mention basically anyone can nominate someone: (Being a politician is enough in this case) [[User:SYSS Mouse|SYSS Mouse]] ([[User talk:SYSS Mouse|talk]]) 05:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
-: After reading up on the nominations for the two years, both had a 0% chance of winning and the person who nominated them was suspect.  We either need to expand the sentence to include those two facts "Bush was unexpected nominated for a Nobel Prize in 2002 and again in 2004 but did not win in either case due to opposition from members of the Nobel Committee who opposed the various Wars started by Bush." Or remove it entirely.  We removed the Sewage plant nonsense(at least until if it passes), this needs to go as well.  As a post script, before Bush was nominated members of the committee that selects the award winner had spoken out against his actions.  After reading, I'm unsure that the nomination itself was not a joke by the nominator and the nominator is the one who announced it as the Nobel committee does not announce who the nominees are.  [[User:RTRimmel|RTRimmel]] ([[User talk:RTRimmel|talk]]) 10:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
-:There was an earlier discussion of the Nobel nominations last year, [[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 58#Nobel Peace prize nomination]]. It was agreed then to remove the mention of the nominations from the lead paragraph with sort of an understanding that this info could be removed from the article altogether later. I have no objections to removing the Nobel Peace Prize nominations mention entirely. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 11:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
-== Tennessee, and why its important but not here. ==
-The crux of the issue is that in almost every case a Presidential Candidate wins his "home" state.  This did not happen in 2000.  The late time it happened (prior to the 2000 election) was 1972. There are a variety of factors including limited campaigning, Gore's record, smears by 527's, and Bush's campaigning and there are all very important... for the Gore page.  For the Bush page it might be worth a sentence, but for here it is borderline trivia as the Florida issue was more central for Bush's campaign.  The fact that Bush won is probably noteworthy, but I don't disagree with earlier commentary that it is not noteworthy on the Bush page.  At most a sentence such as "Bush won a clear victory in the south, even pulling Gore's home state of Tennessee, before the issue of Florida came to a head."  On this page I don't think it merits more than that and we don't need to speculate that Gore would have won if he'd pulled his home state here, there is enough information on the page concerning the 2000 election to ensure that any reader can easily determine that the election was very close.  [[User:RTRimmel|RTRimmel]] ([[User talk:RTRimmel|talk]]) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
-:I can agree with that. The user left a message on my talk page indicating that he was placing the sentence in the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000]] article. I sentence such as the one suggested above may be in our best interest as well. [[User:Happyme22|Happyme22]] ([[User_talk:Happyme22|talk]]) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
-== Suggestions ==
-Well I want to say that the article is in need a few things about Pressident Bush (only a few more months left of that)
-First off what should be added is his time IN THE WHITE HOUSE his first year, he had blown that obligation off so that he could go to his ranch.
-Second thing is the removal of the corperate gains tax, this little thing that was removed by the bush congress in what i believe was 2003 let the big corperations keep more of their money and bleeding the governorment of that money.
-Third thing is the Iraq war, no not the war itself but the troops that are in the war. They had gone over into Iraq with barely any equipment, things that are needed to fight a "war" Troops not having body armour or not having a walkie talkie, the families of the soilders had to provide these items and more becuase the federal government could not or did not have these items in supple.
-The Fourth is the problem with Home Land Sceurity covering serval government agenceys that were not meant to deal with terrorism. The biggest of these was FEMA. FEMA was created to deal with narutal disasters like Katrina or wildfires. Once FEMA was rolled into the mess called Homeland Security they could not acess the tools needed to deal with any emergency, they had to go throught Homeland Security to allocate the tools needed.
-Lasty what should be added is HIS BIAS to the weathly and corperations cough cough *exxon and haliburton* cough cough. His prsidenecney has allowed the bigger man to take control and kill the little man. Regan had his Regenmoics, or trickle down, it is the same policy that bush has and has been using over his presidencey{{unsignedIP|216.37.181.3}}
-::...I'll keep my opinions to myself. [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] should say everything that needs to be said at this point. ([[User:Skunkboy74|Skunkboy74]] ([[User talk:Skunkboy74|talk]]) 15:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC))
-:: Yes, he's a terrible president.  If you can back up your statements and keep them NPOV put them in the article, otherwise don't worry about it.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RTRimmel|RTRimmel]] ([[User talk:RTRimmel|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RTRimmel|contribs]]) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-::: This is Wikipedia. It does not matter if he's a terrible president or not, does it? If you want to trash President Bush, could you do it somewhere else? Thanks. --[[User:Skunkboy74|Skunkboy74]] ([[User talk:Skunkboy74|talk]]) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
-== Razzie Awards ==
-Despite opinions to the contrary, the Golden Raspberry award has been around since the early 80's and has been accepted by Oscar winners and other notables.  It is accurate that Bush was given the award and it passes any notability requirement for an award.  I don't care if you disagree with the reason it was given to Bush, I don't care if it was clearly given in bad taste, it was given to Bush and therefor deserves to be on that page.  [[User:RTRimmel|RTRimmel]] ([[User talk:RTRimmel|talk]]) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-:Agree. [[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 23:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-::Political insults shouldn't be part of these types of articles, if any article. There's nothing notable about insults to President Bush. Many people have insulted Senator [[Barack Obama]]. Should those insults be added to his article? Political insults toward politicians do nothing to further any purpose of Wikipedia. [[Award]]s are meant to formally congratulate someone for doing a positive thing well. The Golden Raspberry is simple meant to insult someone and so is not an award. --[[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
-:::I agree that it is not an award in the traditional sense, but rather an "anti-award", but it is notable. Signs of distinction and notability may be both positive and negative and the key question is how much coverage they receive and how to factor in undue weight considerations. In this case I am not sure and do not have a strong opinion either way. There was substantial news coverage of the Razzie for Bush, but most of it was fairly short term. See GoogleNews results (recent news here[http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Razzie%20%22George%20W.%20Bush%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn], all dates here[http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Razzie+%22George+W.+Bush%22]).  Perhaps deserves either a very brief mention (one sentence) or maybe just a category listing for Category:Golden Raspberry Awards. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
-::::I agree with SMP. Bush is not an actor, so someone giving him a "bad acting" award says more about the awarder than the recipient. Also, regardless of how we try to integrate it into the article, its non-political, off-topic nature makes it seem like slander, and therefore bias. --[[User:Ye Olde Luke|Ye Olde Luke]] ([[User talk:Ye Olde Luke|talk]]) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
-:::::It is clear that the Razzie for Bush was meant as a political statement; if it belongs somewhere in the article at all, it would probably be in the domestic perceptions section. I don't think the question of whether Bush deserved it or if the "award" was fair is particularly relevant here (an attack campaign, if sufficiently widely covered would have to be mentioned). The key question is if Bush's Razzie was the subject of sufficiently wide coverage and if including a mention of it would violate [[WP:UNDUE]]. I am inclined to agree with you that in this case inclusion is probably not warranted on [[WP:UNDUE]] grounds and because the coverage does not appear to be particularly wide.  For [[Jacques Chirac]] his [[Ig Nobel Prize]] is not mentioned in the article about him but his page does include a category listing Category:Ig Nobel Prize winners. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here with Category:Golden Raspberry Awards. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
-== Update to economic section ==
-FYI - the unemployment rate is now 6.1% (see [http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/news/economy/jobs_august/index.htm?cnn=yes this]).  The economic section should probably be updated to reflect this.--[[Special:Contributions/128.62.161.179|128.62.161.179]] ([[User talk:128.62.161.179|talk]]) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
-== Stockholdings ==
-Just curious as to the Presidents' interests and potential conflicts of interest with regards to foreign policy. In what companies does he, his trust, or his estate own shares in?  —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.2.130.171|64.2.130.171]] ([[User talk:64.2.130.171|talk]]) 04:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== Margin of victory misstatement. ==
-"Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest for a victorious incumbent President up for re-election since Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in 1916." This is a senseless statement, and should be corrected or deleted. Suggested: Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest in American history for a victorious incumbent President, superseding Woodrow Wilson's margin of 3.1% against Charles Evans Hughes in 1916.[[User:Orthotox|Orthotox]] ([[User talk:Orthotox|talk]]) 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)