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.

Possible conclusion to his public view section

Would it be too biased to conclude that section with George Bush's presidnency still being percieved in the eyes of many in America and abroad as the biggest failure in American history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.233.75 (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are these "many"? And it's been less than a year, so what does "still" mean? If significant opinion to this effect can be cited 5 or 10 years from now, it may be worth putting it in. -- Zsero (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes.131.247.83.135 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of bias. It's a matter of appropriateness under wikipedia policy. If you're saying it without a source, that's original research; if you're writing a conclusion not explicitly mentioned in a source but based on a whole bunch of sources, that's synthesis.--Louiedog (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to see reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion about how low his approval rating was when he left office, as well as Americans' perception of how well the wars that were started under him were going. Likewise, the perception of him abroad is also covered well. In my opinion, that is sufficient, and stronger conclusions should be reserved for future historians to make.

To simply say that the general concesus is that he was a horrible president because of lot of sources say he was is meaningless, as there are probably also plenty of sources that say he was a great president. Finally, and even though I am not extrordinarily familiar with Wiki policy, such a statement does sound like judgement that is meant to be taken objectively, especially with the weasely "many" substituted for any named group of people. Isn't it fair to say that to judge a president either glowingly or harshly when we are so close in history to that president's tenure in office is going to be inherently unobjective? To report contemporary professional and public opinion of a president and his policies is one thing, but to make such strong judgements of a president just a year after he left office cannot possibly be objective.--Scyldscefing (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there was no successful terrorist attacks on America after the 9/11 attacks for the balance of George Bush's presidency should be included in the "War on Terror" section of this biography. This is a pertinent fact to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedupside (talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted above that would be WP:OR, further there's no saying that wouldn't have been the case anyhow. An attack of that magnitude is hopefully a once in a lifetime situation. NJA (t/c) 07:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Text From This Page

Today I reverted an edit which removed text from this page using the logic that it was a personal attack. While I agree that the deleted text was a clear personal attack I do not agree with its removal as it sets a dangerous precedent for other editors to begin editing and removing talk page text. I feel it is better to leave it and just move on. If that kind of posting persists than we can take steps to report this poor conduct which violates Wiki policy WP:NPA by contacting an Admin. Generally Wiki discourages editing other editors comments. See WP:TALK and WP:TALKO. It also says that the removal of personal attacks, while permitted, is "controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable". I prefer to leave the text and have a record of an editors misbehavior so we can pursue disciplinary action against the editor if the attacks continue. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As the subject of the personal attacks not only here but on at least one other talk page, I generally agree with KBob. I might suggest that clear personal attacks be stricken through, but not deleted. Foolish, falsely brave ANON editors hiding behind their presumed anonymity will be shown for what they are by letting their inane comments stand on their own. If another editor has a problem with me, here is my talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes a 'strike through' the offensive text is a good compromise and its lets people know that uncivil remarks are not acceptable, while maintaining the text if needed for future reference.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. While I understand that "wikipedia is not censored" isn't actually what the policy says, I see no reason why we should remove text simply because it breaks a rule. It should only be removed when its presence constitutes an ongoing offense (privacy violations, criminal speech, et cet). We're big boys and girls and we don't need to put our hands over our eyes to protect us from someone calling us a poo poo head. Sanction the name callers and move on. Striking the text is fine, but removal of the comment seems unnecessary censorship.--Δζ (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very critical of Bush. It sounds more like CNN than a biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.134.48 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to give examples, or suggest changes. Just saying something isn't right isn't much to work with. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Duh, the libs are running the show.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...is a general accusation indistinguishable in origin from hostile media effect. Please select the portions you believe violate WP:NPOV for discussion.--Louiedog (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

......I believe this is a fairly positive view of George W Bush as one of his distinguishing historical characteristics is he is the first person ever to be elected president of the United States after having been convicted of DUI, a misdemeanor when he was found guilty but during his presidency considered a felony everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeinlondon (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this article a first offence DUI in the US is not considered a felony today. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was the socialist O's article, then there wouldnt be anything negative in it.--Palin12 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin2012, welcome to wikipedia. I'm sorry for your confusion. This is the talkspace for discussion of the George W. Bush article. The talkspace for discussing the Obama article can be found here.--Louiedog (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Its called a comparison, get it, got it, did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palin12 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor, I'm sorry again for the confusion. This is not the purpose of talk pages in wikipedia. The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Happy editing!--Louiedog (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda piece.

This is panegyric of Bush (who would have thought it possible!). The whole article needs to be replaced with another. It should address the "controversies" associated with the Bush administration: the social effects of his policies on the economy, health care, education, taxation and social security "reform", the lead up to the Iraq war, his record as Governor of Texas, in which capacity he presided over more tham 150 executions, and many more. Why not ask David North to write it? Arthurjermyn (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, but talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of nickname?

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He is and was commonly referred to as "Dubya" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.123.231 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) It's already mentioned in the "see also" section. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Recession comment incorrect.

I believe that the statement "In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession." is incorrect. The definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth . This did not happen until Q3/Q4 of 2008. Besides being factually incorrect, the statement is illogical as well. By definition, the longest a "recession" can be is 5 quarters. 6 quarters of negative GDP growth is no longer a recession, it is a depression. This definition actually is in conflict with Wikipedia's definition which is eight quarters , but most college economics courses teach six. (I will address the editing of that page at another time.) In the years 1973/74 the US had 5 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Q3 and Q4 for 2008 where negative growth GDP quarters, as where Q1 and Q2 of 2009. Q3 of 2009 showed a positive GDP growth rate which means we had 4 quarters of negative growth in '08/'09 as opposed to 5 in '73/'74. In 1980-83 the US saw 6 consecutive quarters of negative GDP which constituted a depression.

Contrary to popular myth, a recession is not officially defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. NBER states - "A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. " In the same token Depression is not defined as 6 or 8 quarters of negative growth. Depression was the just the old name for recession (you can see the economic texts of 19th century mentioning it after every economic crisis) and during great depression a few economists and psychologists thought recession would be a better terminology as it is less depressing psychologically. -- User:BalajiViswanathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.210.245 (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

74.115.64.254 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Dubya 12/18/2009

The WP:RS backs up this viewpoint. Its not our job to do WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, we have to report on what the sources indicate and they overwhelmingly call it the longest post ww2 recession as such, so do we. Do you have any credible sources that say otherwise? If so, we could at least pull it out of the lede, but we'd need to mention the recession on some level in the lede given its severity. RTRimmel (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Miserable failure redirect

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that it is highly rude that "Miserable Failure" Redirects to Bush. Firstly, that he is a failure is an opinion, not a fact (An Opinion I don't agree with that). Secondly, when typing that, I was expecting to get to the Google bomb page (Read it to get what I mean). In short, the Miserable failure should re-direct there instead.24.29.50.195 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Miserable failure, in fact, redirects to Google bomb. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture at the top

Shouldn't the picture at the top be his official Presidential Portrait, as that is probably the last official portrait he will have?

Anal bombardment

Anal bombardment is when the anus is bombarded by a horde of phalli. It can also refer to a phallus being attacked by a bunch of anuses, but this is rather rare and disturbing.

Anal bombardment typically occurs during orgies and gang rape.

Template:Anus-stub