Talk:George H. W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleGeorge H. W. Bush was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
May 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 22, 2016Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 1, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article

Possible copyright violation[edit]

In the George H. W. Bush#World War II section, a paragraph or two seems to have been copied, with minor changes, from (from source [4])
One example - Text in article:

  • Bush waited for four hours in an inflated raft, while several fighters circled protectively overhead, until he was rescued by the submarine USS Finback, on lifeguard duty

Text in source:

  • While Bush anxiously waited four hours in his inflated raft, several fighters circled protectively overhead until he was rescued by the lifeguard submarine, USS Finback

There are a other sentences copied with minor changes. I think this should this be rewritten. 2606:6000:CB87:F400:ADF7:D24C:3DAF:6857 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I rewrote the above sentence a little more (the "lifeguard" bit was already removed):
  • Bush spent four hours in an inflated raft, protected by fighter aircraft circling above, until the submarine USS Finback came to his rescue.
I haven't looked at the rest of the source, so don't know if more should be rewritten. --Pipetricker (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request: Sexual misconduct allegations section and Parkinson's[edit]

In the Sexual misconduct allegations section, please remove references to parkinson's and drug medication. Those two sentences are original research by people trying to white knight for Bush. The referenced citations are about parkinson's in general and not about the disease's specific impact on him as an individual.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Also please see discussion above.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done, per WP:SYNTH. --Pipetricker (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you!Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone PLEASE block Epiphyllumlover from editing this page!!! He continues to vandalize it.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Posters5, Epiphyllumlover's edits are not vandalism. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed the stuff again, again per WP:SYNTH, but left the newly added mention of it being noted by the Washington Post writer (even though that wasn't the point of her blog post, and surely she wasn't the only commentator mentioning Bush's behaviour being connected by some to Parkinson/dementia?). --Pipetricker (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pipetricker, I understand your last edit as justifiable especially in terms of readability. However, in my defense the content of my edits fall under:WP:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_unpublishably_unoriginal
It occurred to me that there are distinctive Kantian vs. Hegelian forms of WP:SYNTH, both on Wikipedia and in real life. This is problematic because epistemological differences tend to be ingrained. Change happens slowly over years, if at all. Someone used to defining synthesis in terms of Kant's Analytic–synthetic distinction will not label things the same as someone using the Thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad. For the most part, this should not be a problem because math and hard science articles are going to be edited mostly by editors with the former distinction, while politics, pop-culture, history, and art will be dominated by editors with the latter distinction.
If you haven't figured it out already, I see myself as using the Analytic–synthetic distinction (in a practical sense), while Posters5 would be more along the lines of the triad. The solution to this problem would be to integrate C. West Churchman's inquiring systems approach to clarify when each definition of synthesis should apply. The different angles discussed on the WP:What_SYNTH_is_not page go down this path halfway already. But since it is only Wikipedia I doubt it is necessary to solve the problem.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal applies to this. The facts regarding Bush's behavior being or not being a consequence of his Parkinson's or dementia are not at all common knowledge anywhere.
Facts that are common knowledge in the Parkinson and dementia medical communities were here offered in support of the thought that it's likely that Bush's behavior was a consequence of his Parkinson or dementia, a synthesis that isn't claimed by any of the sources. --Pipetricker (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, a number of media made the Parkinson/medication defense at the time. Here's USA Today: "A medical condition might explain former President George H.W. Bush’s recent behavior, according to several doctors who are familiar with the condition but not with the President’s case or care."
On the flip side, the Texas Monthly reported 8 different gropings, beginning before Bush used a wheelchair.
But what I came to check on was whether there was any mention of Jennifer Fitzgerald. Jon Meacham's biography gives two and a half pages to rumors of an affair with her and with others. YoPienso (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that published writers mentioned parkinson's, but again: 1) there was no formal diagnosis or link between the disease and Bush groping women; 2) the earliest alleged instances took place when Bush was walking. I want to reiterate that it's nonsensical for Epiphyllumlover to speculate about medication because he has actually admitted that we don't even know if Bush was on meds for parkinson's!Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Would something like this be better than the current mention of the Washington Post writer?:

At the time, media reported of doctors familiar with parkinsonism, but unfamiliar with Bush’s medical case, speculating that the vascular parkinsonism which Bush had been diagnosed with might explain his behavior.[1]

--Pipetricker (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The article should explain the nickname "Bush 41"[edit]

he was referred to as "George H. W. Bush", "Bush 41"

Could some one add an explanation about this nickname "Bush 41", "41" as the 41th US president. I do not have sufficient edit privileges to edit myself the code... --Wisdood (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wisdood: Perhaps the first sentence of the article stating he served as the 41st president, with the additional mention that W. was the 43rd, is enough explanation? Or would something like this be an improvement?:
..., he was referred to as "George H. W. Bush", "George Bush Sr.", or as he was the 41st president, "Bush 41".
--Pipetricker (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sidetrack on punctuation style[edit]

I would note that all the nicknames in this paragraph have the punctuation outside of the quotations. Per American usage, they should be inside, e.g. "Bush 41,". Since I cannot edit, I mention it here. 2601:19B:8300:2F00:F87F:B699:71D1:5646 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We use "logical quotation" style per WP:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside. --Pipetricker (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I am an American and I was taught that punctuation goes within the quotes if it is part of the quoted material; if the punctuation is not part of the quote, the punctuation goes outside the quote. The only exception being elipses ... indicating part of the quoted material has been left out. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Further information: WP:Logical quotation on Wikipedia. --Pipetricker (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agnew resignation[edit]

I'm not going to edit this page, but I think this article now needs updating regarding the revelations days before Bush died that refer to obstruction at the time of the resignation of Spiro Agnew. [1][2][3][4][5] Roricka (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You have basically four sources regurgitating the same podcast. I wouldn't consider Slate or MSNBC unbiased here either. Calidum 05:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Really? How could any source be considered "biased" out of hand? Is it biased to say 1+1=2? If you look at the materials you'll see they are simply historical documents that have been recently discovered. There is no issue of bias here. And these are not a simple regurgitation of the same podcast. The original podcast is aural. It requires a transcript. There are documents available that would be inappropriate for the podcast. I'll admit that MSNBC wants page rank so they spread their links around. But the point here is that this is a genuine discovery, not some hack accusation. It's not the main story presented in the podcast, but a fair bit of evidence is now available, which is what the references were meant to make accessible. If it really bothers you I will reduce it all down to a single footnote. But let's get beyond that. I have a question. Is there an argument that a clear-cut case of obstruction WOULDN'T be appropriate for including in the article? Roricka (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rachel Maddow podcast Nov. 2018 "Bag Man"
  2. ^ Slate Dec. 2018 "Bush Nixon Agnew obstruction scheme memo"
  3. ^ Rachel Maddow podcast listen notes "Episode 4 Listen Notes"
  4. ^ NBC News interview transcript ("real discovery") "M. Beschloss interview"
  5. ^ Bag Man supplementary materials "Bag Man supplementary materials"
I tried updating, and it was reverted as "not noteworthy." I would disagree. As to the sources, they include audio tapes from Nixon, so pretending that they're not reliable is pretty laughable. --Thalia42 (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement on Bush's civil rights voting record[edit]

This bio contains inaccurate statement on Bush voting record on Civil Rights. The NY Times article below documents that Bush had mixed record and had opposed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, but later voted for Fair Housing Act of 1968 as political winds shifted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6000:7A40:B884:8A21:C8A7:ACD9 (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019[edit]

Addition to the honorary degrees section: 2000, Saint Anselm College, Honorary Doctor of Laws. Source:( "President Bush was no stranger to Saint Anselm College. On May 18, 2000, he delivered the College’s commencement address where he was presented an honorary doctor of laws degree.") (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done  DiscantX 08:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ranking by Historians[edit]

A sentence regarding Bush's general ranking among American presidents by historians should be included at the end of the introductory section, as there is in almost every other U.S. president article on Wikipedia.

26 years since his term ended, as of 2019, is sufficient time for such a general consensus to be established, on a historical time scale, even if he is perhaps the most recent president for whom this is true, as of this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really. His successors until Donald Trump have already received rankings in the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. In the Siena Poll, 2018, Bush ranked as the 21st best President. He was trailing behind: