Talk:George H. W. Bush/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Succession Box Order

Should the Succession box be reorganized to follow chonological order? Mikebar (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living president

Is it really necessary to post the fact that he is the oldest living US president in the introduction? Seems a bit like trivia to me. --Inhuman14 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way he is not the oldest living president. Jimmy Carter is still very much alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.87.144 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter is younger by almost 4 months. Mohummy 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He's also the oldest living former vice president. Shouldn't that be added as well?ElNico (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he also happens to be the oldest living former-vice president current-president son of a president. Should we add that too? In my opinion, the whole thing is useless factiods that serve only as amusing Jeapordy questions. And in the introduction no less! I'm with Inhuman. Get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.53.15 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"'I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens"

I've removed this quote, attributed to GHW Bush, as a blp concern, in response to comment on Talke: Separation of Church and State about its dubious sourcing. -- Vary | Talk 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The same quote was also in the Quotes section. I've removed it for the same reason. WP:BLP and possible WP:RS. The only person making the claim for the quote is a political activist, we should have at least some other confirmation of the quote. All the other quotes are verifiable but this one is not. Mohummy (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks. -- Vary | Talk 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that this quote be reinstated on the basis of the following supporting documentation, a letter to Jon Garth Murray of American Atheists from White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, Subject Code RM, Document Number 157715 CU: http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm Lippard (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

I really admire George Bush, and feel that his article can be 100% better than it currently is. That's why I've tagged it for needing additional citations. The sections "Panama" and "1988 presidentical campaign" don't include any citations (they are especially needed with all the claims being made in the '88 campaign section). Also, the "Presidency" section only includes events dealing with foreign policy and hardly any on what went on domestically. As well as that, more should be added in the "post-presidency" section. A few months ago, I added about the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award and his eulogies for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. Finally, the "quotes" section isn't nessecary and doesn't follow MOS guidelines, as quotes should be put in Wikiquote. Anyway, I think those are some very good places to start and I definitely look forward to helping out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Just wanted to add a link to the 1988 Republican Convention speech mentioned (notable for "thousand points of light," "kinder, gentler nation," and "Read my lips, no new taxes." Here it is: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/georgehbush1988rnc.htm. ** And I wish somewikione could find the whole quote/context/transcript/audio of "the vision thing" from 1987. UK band The Sisters of Mercy referenced both "vision thing" and "thousand points of light" in their 1990 song "Vision Thing" on their album of same name:

It´s a small world and it smells funny
I´d buy another if it wasn´t for the money
It´s a small world and it smells bad
I´d buy another if I had
Back what I paid
For another motherfucker in a motorcade

Slamming through
Slamming through

What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we´re waiting for the next one to arrive?
One million points of light
One billion dollar vision thing

Thanks

Sources for "the vision thing" are here, here, and specifically here ++Arx Fortis (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I have an autograph of George Bush in my possession. The signature picture up right now is pretty low resolution. If we decide we would rather have a higher resolution image (which I'd be happy to create), just let me know. Thanks --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Let's try it out. Happyme22 (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Early life

The lead paragraph in Early life section sounds pretty disjointed. Specifically, there is not much information on why the fact that the Victorian house is privately owned is notable needs explaination. Kushal^t 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article could use some MAJOR clean up! It's on my list to help, but I've been pretty busy. Happyme22 (talk) 01:24, January 20, 2008 (UTC)

Some problem with the images...

An image appeared to be broken; I edited the section and the preview showed it without any problem, but it remained broken after I saved the edit. I took a look at the edit history and another editor had the same problem, but apparently with another image. I don't really understand this. Herunar (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And neither do I. I presume the image is now fixed? If not you might want to contact techincal support, or something. Happyme22 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Objectivity in Entire Article!

This article lacks objectivity, with words like "Interestingly" and accusations like "he alienated." And what's this comment about him "Playing Tennis" while Reagan was undergoing surgery? That's sounds awfully critical to me, and not like an objective information piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyboroda (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this article is, in my opinion, awful and needs major clean up. Happyme22 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to believe that Bush spent the "majority" of his 8 hours as acting president playing tennis. 4+ hours of tennis? I didn't see it as criticism though; an acting president really shouldn't do much governing outside of a serious emergency. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reagan assassination attempt

There's should be some mention about how Bush handled himself during during March 30th, 1981. Things like, his refusal to land on the White House lawn & his address to the press on the Government runnings smoothly. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I feel this article needs major work. Anything you wish to add/remove to clean it up, please do (but be sure to include citations). Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents box vandaism

From the contents section, item 12... "what's up Bobby"... someone care to investigate/ change it? The user should be dealt with.--24.131.209.180 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you reffering to? Happyme22 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

incorrect date

He married on january 6, 1945 not 1954 the information needs to be edited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.69.198 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up! Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

No, not really. Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

I don't usually. Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

I'm not a member of very many WikiProjects, so not particularly. Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed my two cents. I'm not sure if my answers are very helpful to you, though. Thanks for doing this! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Acting President in infobox

At least twice this year the Acting President info has been added to then removed from the Infobox. Should it be there and if so, where is the best place to put it? It is in the main body of the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the body of the article, and as far as I'm concerned, that's the only place it should be. But User:Energizer07 reverted me here and at Dick Cheney, citing Wikipedia policy. I dropped the user a line and am awaiting a response. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's been five days, and I've haven't received a response from User:Energizer07. The user deleted my query as well. Thus I am acting in my best judgement by removing it from this page and that of Dick Cheney, because it was one (or in Cheney's case two) day in the life of the Vice President; in fact, it wasn't even a full day. This detail is best left for the body of the article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of Interest, Dick Cheney's infobox only includes one of the two times he was Acting President of the United States. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think pro forma trivia like this belongs in the infobox. It should be in the article. If the person actually did something Presidential, such as if the President had a stroke and the Vice-President filled out his term as Acting President, that would be different. As a point of comparison, in many U.S. States, if the Governor is out of the state the Lieutenant Governor becomes Acting Governor or Governor For A Day. In most states such an event wouldn't even be encyclopedic. In routine cases like surgery, it's only encyclopedic for the US Presidency because it is so rare.

If this issue becomes contentious, it may be time to do a Request for Comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, Does anyone agree with me when I say the fact that during his tenure as VP Cheney was sworn in as President for a two hour period remain in the info box?--Energizer07 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:George H. W. Bush#Acting President in infobox. Happyme22 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with Happyme22 that it should not be included. "Acting president" for two hours simply isn't worth mentioning in the infobox. - auburnpilot talk 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify something; I think that everyone is a little bit confused when it comes to my actions and to the actions of User:Energizer07, so please allow me straighten out the facts. Energizer07 first added that Bush Sr. and Cheney served as acting president of the U.S. to the infobox of the respective articles, and claimed that there is Wikipedia policy to support the additions and thus should stay in the infobox. Well I disagreed with him because: 1.) it was one (or in Cheney's case, two) day(s) of an eight year vice presidency (in fact, they weren't even full days) and that is placing undue weight on that single day; 2.) the edit on Cheney's page only mentioned that he served as acting president (for less than a day) in 2002, but neglected to mention that he also served as acting president (for less than a day) in 2007. I contacted the user on April 20 and asked if he could point me to Wikipedia policy that supported the addition; he deleted my message and did not respond. I waited for six days for a response, and receiving none, I reverted the edits on April 26th citing no response from the user. Well apparently he was upset (see the message here) and has made it seem as if I the one that has failed to abide by Wikipedia policy. Abandoning his claim that the edits are supported by policy, he now says that it is cited material, so it should stay. Well that is not an adequate reason and I responded to him here, outlining my arguments and why his assertions are incorrect. He also stated that "Cheney was sworn in as President of the US" and that makes it notable; well that's factually incorrect. President Reagan, and later President GW Bush, signed a piece of paper that authorized Vice President Bush (and later VP Cheney) to serve as acting president while the serving president was under anesthesia. The two men were not sworn in, but rather authorized; that's big difference.

I appologize for the long message, but I wanted to communicate to everyone that any assertions he makes about me regarding my "vandalism", as he recently put it, are incorrect. I stand by my position that an event that occured for a few hours is not notable enough for the infobox, but I will abide by the decision of the consensus. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would be shocked if infoboxes were covered by one of Wikipedia's policies. What goes in infoboxes would be covered by a guideline not a policy. More likely, they wouldn't be covered by a guideline but rather common practice and convention. Second, assuming that "important offices should be in an officeholder infobox" is covered by a guideline, and I'm not saying it is, guidelines have room for obvious exceptions. See my comments on Acting Governor For A Day above.

The only relevant content policies I can find are Ignore All Rules which gives us collectively, by consensus permission to ignore the content policies if deemed appropriate, and the content policies. The most appropriate enforcement policy I can find is consensus, which is what we are trying to do in this discussion.

Looking at the content policies one at a time:

• Attack pages - irrelevant, this is not an attack page
• Biographies of Living Persons - no: Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

This policy says that since it is verifiable, neutral, and meets other requirements, it is okay to state that he was Acting President. It arguably requires that to maintain WP:NPV the information must be in the article, but that is a weak argument. It in no way requires that the information be in the the infobox.

• Naming Conventions: irrelevant, there is no naming convention dispute
• Neutral Point of View: See Biographies of Living Persons for applicability to having this data in the article. It does not require data in the infobox.
• No Original Research: irrelevant, this is not original research
• Verifiability, or rather lack thereof: irrelevant, the fact is verified
• What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While this data is encyclopedic and this section of WP:NOT should not be used as grounds to delete the data, the spirit of this section is that some information is more important than other information and, as a corollary, some information should be highlighted in infoboxes and other information should not be. We use consensus to determine which is which.

In summary, I can find nothing in any obviously-relevant policy that requires this information to be in an infobox.

My recommendation:

1. Assuming I didn't miss anything when looking at the policies, drop the policy claim.
2. Assert a "we should do it because it is a good idea" claim. If you think it's a good idea by all means say so and say why.
3. Have a debate and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus does NOT mean everyone agrees that the outcome is correct, only that the outcome will be respected. If no consensus can be reached, use input from the request for comments and elsewhere.

Just as a personal opinion: On an issue that is relatively inconsequential such as this, if the outcome of the discussion is lopsided but a person on the minority side does not concede the issue, it says more about the editor than the issue. Of course this statement doesn't apply if editors are nearly evenly divided on the issue.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

then VP Nixon served as acting President for a substantial period of time ( a month I believe) while Eisenhower was ill or having surgeryPonileExpress (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Devlopment

I'm pretty sure there is an "L" in "development -- Bush started the Bush-Overby Oil Deveopment company in 1951 -- Just one of those things that drives me crazy. 68.106.61.240 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 4.25.2008. I don't have a username.

I've fixed it. Thanks a lot for the heads up! Happyme22 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Friends

U need best friend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.122.232 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Can you please elaborate on what you are referring to? Happyme22 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Acting president in infobox, part II - RFC

There is concern over whether the fact that George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney serving as acting president of the United States (Cheney twice) is notable enough to merit inclusion in the infobox. Please see the discussion above for additional background information. !! time=02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is concern over whether the fact that George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney serving as acting president of the United States (Cheney twice) is notable enough to merit inclusion in the infobox. Please see the discussion above for additional background information.

RFC closed due to lack of activity. Text of RFC was removed by an editor active in editing this page and restored as an archive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not reviewed* ¹

2. Factually accurate?: Not reviewed* ²

3. Broad in coverage?: Not reviewed* ³

4. Neutral point of view?: Not reviewed* ⁴

5. Article stability? FAIL ⁵

6. Images?: Not reviewed* ⁶

If you have not significantly contributed to this article please review 1-4 and 6 and mark them PASSED. Whether you are editing the article or not, if you find a reason to FAIL one if the criteria please mark it FAIL and add your comments.

¹Insert reviewer comments here

²Insert reviewer comments here

³Insert reviewer comments here

⁴Insert reviewer comments here

⁵Article is unstable. When the current edit dispute over whether to include Bush's short term as Acting President in the infobox is resolved 5 will change to PASS, assuming the article is otherwise stable. If you see other evidence of article instability please add it below.

⁶Insert reviewer comments here

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

I'm not sure, but shouldn't the ongoing content dispute qualify the article to a direct quick-fail? the "Article stability" is obviously not "pass-worthy". - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly but my hope is this is the only failure and that it will be resolved within a day or two. Even if you are right, there's no harm in doing it the long way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but I would like to point you to FA Barack Obama, which was fully protected for editing warring last month at least four times, and was not deemed unstable nor delisted. This is a minor dispute and should not fail the stability immediately.

That said, I am considering giving up on the acting pres in infobox until a later date at least, seeing as there is no concensus either way and Wikipedia does not decide by voting. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this could be considered as failing the stability criteria. The dispute is over one line in the infobox, and has no effect on the quality of the article. Also, I don't believe an edit war on an FA or GA would lead to a reassessment; I've simply never seen that done. - auburnpilot talk 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there isn't a concensus on whether to include them or not; what do we do now? Happyme22 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I prefer not to see the acting president notations in infoboxes, if they are there and consistent across all Vice Presidents who acted as President, I won't block consensus. This is a pretty trivial matter in the grand scheme of things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that there is a concensus: User:AuburnPilot, User:davidwr, and myself, User:Happyme22, feel that the information is not necessary for the infobox(es) on both pages. In response to your phrase, David, regarding all vice presidents who acted as president, it was only *officially* GHWB and Cheney, so those are *officially* the only two that we have to worry about (as they were the only two to be handed the temporary power by a signed statement per the 25th amendment). Per a concensus on this talk page, I am removing the information from both pages. Happyme22 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken Good Article Nomination off of hold and am archiving this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good Article Nomination

I have taken the nomination off hold. A disinterested reviewer will probably come along in the next few days and accept or reject the nomination. If he rejects it, he should provide a reason. If you have not edited this article for content and happen to see this message, consider reviewing this and other Good Article nominations. To those of us who have edited this article, consider reviewing other Good Article nominations. See the top of this talk page for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

40th vice president

wouldn't he be the 40th vice president and not the 43rd, because reagan was the 40th persident —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Evil Dog (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, because some presidents have had multiple vice presidents (in event of a resignation, etc.). As an example, Richard Nixon had Spiro Agnew and later Gerald Ford. Good question, though. Happyme22 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Evil Dog (talk • contribs) 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDB Link

I added the IMDB link back to the article. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with this link. There's no criteria that says someone has to have "acted" to have the link listed in the external links section. The surprisingly long list of appearances in films and television is informative and useful without having to maintain the list in the text of the article. I see no reason why the link shouldn't be included. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me. I just found it a bit odd to include this because Bush was not an actor and did not act in any films. But I guess documentaries are okay. Happyme22 (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review, May 2008

I have picked this up for review and will leave my initial comments shortly. As I understand it, the article previously failed GA on a stability issue that has since been resolved, and has not been fully reviewed against the other GA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it was put on hold then taken off hold when the stability issue was resolved. Other issues were not reviewed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your comments! Happyme22 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

General Review

The article is informative and for the most part well-presented. The significant issues which I noted after reading through can be summarized under these headings:-

• General style: There are numerous awkwardly-phased passages, some wayward punctuation, and over-use of the semi-colon. I have indicated many of the clumsy sentences in the review below, but there may well be others.

• Missing citations: On a number of occasions, as indicated below, I felt that specific citations were needed for statements made in the text.

• Sources: I haven’t checked to see if all the links to on-line source material are live. One that I did check (see below) was definitely dead. Suggest you check them all.

My section-by-section comments are as follows:-

• Lead:

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "including being" – two adjacent –ing words at the start of the article is a big clunk. Suggest you reword.
  • The comma after "at the age of 18" changes the meaning of the sentence and needs to be deleted.
  • "successful" operation sounds like POV
  • Trivial, I know, but surely he’s the oldest living former president? And, since there are only three of them, is this noteworthy?

• Early years: You begin this section with your one and only reference to him as "George". Was there a reason? He becomes "Bush" again in the next sentence.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• World War II: I had a lot of problems with this section.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "decided that he wanted to…" could be "decided to…"
  • "He did just that" sounds too informal for an encyclopedia article
  • Within the space of a few lines you have "lieutenant junior grade", "Lieutenant Junior Grade" and "Lieutenant Jr grade". Consistency required.
  • Antiaircraft needs a hyphen
  • You need to specify that Delaney and white were both killed in this action.
  • The verb "cannibalise" means "to use serviceable parts from one machine or vehicle to repair another". If you mean that the Japanese ate their captives you will have to say so. This citation link, to a London Daily Telegraph source, was dead when I tried it so I could not follow up this astounding story.

When I implemented that citation, the link worked fine. But you are correct that it does not anymore, and I guess that's how the internet works :) There are other citations to it but none that I would deem very reliable as of now, so I am going to remove it. Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don’t know why you start the final paragraph "The Lieutenant Jr grade" when you mean Bush.

• Marriage/college

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Something seems to be missing: "…met Babe Ruth before a game his senior year".

I don't think anything is missing... It's trivial, yes, but interesting that one of out future presidents was a baseball star who met Babe Ruth.

• • "…tapped for membership" needs explaining to non-Americans (like me).

• Oil: The 3rd sentence is too long, needs to be made into two.

 Done with other changes. Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Early political career: This heading covers events until 1980 when he ran for vice-president. Is it all referable as his "early" political career?

 Done - I've renamed the section

• Congressional years

 Done, with other minor changes. Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • 3rd para: You’ve already said who Yarborough was, you don’t have to say "Democratic Senator" again. Just "Yarborough" will do.
  • "With Yarborough defeated.." – you don’t have to say again "in the primary".
  • You don’t explain why Nixon’s support for Bush waned after Yarborough’s defeat. Is there a story here?

• UN Ambassador

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The first sentence is a good example of where you need to have two sentences rather than a semi-colon division.
  • Who heavily criticised Bush’s lack of foreign policy experience?

I can't find anything about anyone criticizing his lack of experience, and I think that was thrown in there simply because of the lack of criticisms until that part of his life (although up until then, there wasn't a lot to criticize him for). Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Republican Chairman

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "As the UN ambassador, Bush formally requested…" Surely he had ceased to hold that post by then? Why would it be a UN ambassador’s job to do this, anyway?
  • You’ve used "did just that" again.

• China Envoy: The parenthetical part of this long sentence should be a sentence in its own right, not a bracketed appendage.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• CIA Director

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There are no citations in the first para, which makes significant statements

And I cannot find any reliable citations relating to the claims, so it probably best to remove them. Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "Senate Church committee" needs explaining (people might think of it as a religious body rather than a committee chaired by Sen. Church)
  • Shouldn’t you say "alleged" illegal and unauthorised activities.

• Other positions

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Excuse my ignorance, but what is an “adjunct” professor? Unknown term in UK academia.

It means part-time. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1980 Presidential campaign

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "Bush had decided in the late 1970s that he was going to run for president in 1980". Citation needed
  • Second sentence in para 2 needs to specify that "he" is Bush.
  • "Bush was surprised…" Citation needed

• Vice President

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • First sentence contains a non-sequitur. Also, "naturally deferential" needs a citation
  • "Mrs Bush found the funeral largely beneficial.." Which one? Or maybe should be plural?
  • Spelling: occurrences
  • 2nd para would begin better if date was transferred to start of sentence, as: "On March 30 1981, early into the administration…."
  • First sentence of 4th para could do with a citation
  • Last sentence of this section is very confusing. Should the "had" after "Rather" be deleted. And "amidst the beginning" is very awkward phrasing.

• Presidential Campaign

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "Although" seems the wrong word to begin the section
  • Was New Hampshire a primary or a caucus?

Primary. I've changed it. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Bush "continued seeing victory"? Seeking, perhaps?

I actually think seeing is correct in this instance, as it implies that he continued winning the primaries. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Presidency

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • In the context of this section the words "succeeding Ronald Reagan as president of the United States" are redundant
  • "leading to successes in both…" is POV. Indeed, the Gulf War success is qualified later in this article.

• Economy

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Three times is not a hyphenated term
  • "Angrily perceived as a means of revenge…" What was "angrily perceived"? Some rewording necessary, I think.
  • "Scrambling" – means what, in the political sense?

In this instance it means "working quickly", as in to put something together

• • There’s no word "layed" that I know of. Should be "laid", and it should be "which laid off" not "and laid off"

• Major initiatives: Spelling “quarrelled”

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Panama

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "additional troops to Panama to heed the way…"?
  • This sentence clunks: "Noriega suppressed an October military coup attempt and massive protests in Panama against Noriega".

• Gulf War: "More charged that Bush should have continued the attack and pushed Hussein’s army back to Baghdad, and remove him from power". Grammar goes awry at the end, and who were the "more"?

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Soviet Union

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Trivial point, but what’s "between" December 2 and 3? Should the word be “during”?

"During" doesn't sound correct to me, as "between" means it continued through Dec. 2 and 3. Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 Bush and Gorbachev declared a US-Soviet strategic partnership". To what does "Soviet" refer to in this sentence. since this is after the dissolution of the USSR?

Correct - nice catch! Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• NAFTA

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • 2nd para starts "This....". What is "this"?
  • The central portion of this paragraph has significant statements that need citation.
  • Isn’t Guttierez the present US Commerce secretary, not a Washington Post staff writer?

• 1992 campaign

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There’s probably a wikipedia rule about using contractions like "wouldn’t"
  • Last para: "He raised taxes.." Who he?

• Past president

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • They retired to their home, not at' their home
  • (Incidentally, in UK, George HW Bush is usually referred to as “Bush senior”, or “the first Bush”, not by his middle intials)

• Presidential library

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • 3rd para begins with typo
  • There is variable capitalization of program/Program
  • It’s a pity to end an article like this with trivia, but it’s not really important.

I've not had the chance to look closely at the images - I'll do that soon. Obviously, much work has gone into this article, and I hope that my comments will be seen as positive ways towards improving it, rather than as criticism or point-scoring. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are not taken as criticisms. I want to thank you very much, Brian, for taking the time to provide us with such a detailed list. I have completed all of your recommendations above. Those that I disagree with changing (which I think were only three) I've noted as well. Hopefully the article is GA-fit now. Again Brian, thank you. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me congratulate you on the speed with which you took up my points. I'm generally happy with how you've dealt with them, but I'm left with a few niggles, also one or two issues relating to images and sources.

• I'm sorry I didn't clarify my point about the Babe Ruth reference. I'm not saying it shouldn't be here, its interesting. It's the wording that I was querying. The half-sentence: "as the team captain, Bush met Babe Ruth before a game his senior year" would not be accepted as grammatical in written Brit-English. It would have to be "...before a game during his senior year". If you assure me that your version is acceptable as written American English, I'll take your word for it.
• There'll be thousands of Brits like me reading this article who won't know that adjunct means part-time. Could you put it in brackets for us?
• In the Economy subsection you now have "Perceived as a means of revenge, Republican congressmen defeated Bush's proposals". I know what you mean, but the grammar is not quite right. "Perceiving a means of revenge, Republican..." etc., would be correct.
• Also in the Economy subsection, I think it should be "number of workers" rather than "amount" of workers—I didn't spot this first time round.
• Panama section: You haven't dealt with my query concerning the use of "heed", as in "troops to heed the way for the upcoming invasion. Heed means listen to, pay attention to; it doesn't have the sense of "prepare". Could you choose a word that more clearly gives the meaning you need?
• The images are good and well-chosen to illustrate many aspects of Bush's life. Just a couple of points: Is it possibe to date the picture of Bush with Eisenhower? And, in the Panama picture caption you refer to Operation Just Cause without having mentioned this name for the operation in the text. A brief note in the text would be helpful.
• With the exception of the one I picked up earlier, all the source links look good, although [27] requires me to pay a fee to access it, and [46] and [47] refer to other Wikipedia articles, which might be frowned on at FAC if you take the article there.
• I notice that you are using mdashs with spaces around them. The proper form is without spaces—as in this sentence. Again, this is more of an FAC point.I haven't done an audit for MoS compliance; there are no obvious major violations that I can see.

If you can get back to me on the above points I think we can conclude the business quite quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I believe I addressed all of the points. Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GA promotion

I am promoting this article to GA. It is a comprehensive, well-illustrated biographical article which meets all the GA criteria. All points raised in the review process were dealt with by the editors satisfactorily—this process is detailed on this page. It certainly has the makings of a future featured article, but before its nomination I would recommend a thorough copyedit; issues relating to punctuation and sentence construction may need further attention. I would also suggest a careful audit of MoS issues.

Congratulations to the editors for producing a very worthy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)

Supermarket Scanner

I edited the sentence on the supermarket scanner episode to clarify it. The old sentence implies the news article was not factual with the word "claim". I went further and replaced this with "false report" based on the referenced Snopes article. As the Snopes article (and other published sources on the story) make clear the supermarket scanner article was a false report and it should be patent in the text that this was the case. I also improved the language somewhat by replacing the word "enhanced" with "reinforced" which is perhaps a somewhat better word choice for the context. I would also note that the episode is discussed by Marlin Fitzwater in his book "Call the Briefing!" in which he goes into details on the circumstances surrounding the Rosenthal story. Fitzwater complains in his book that Rosenthal was going through a nasty divorce and taking it out on Bush and that Rosenthal had actually written a number of slanted stories against the president of which the supermarket scanner was only the most prominent example. I didn't add the book to the references because the Snopes analysis is comprehensive and additional referencing would I think start to get tangential. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I added the Fitzwater book to the further reading section as it is a good inside source to the Bush presidency. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your reasoning. Happy Editing! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bush 41"

George H. W. Bush is frequently refered to as "Bush 41" in the media. There is even a redirect from "Bush 41" to this article.

After coming to this page I can see that he was the 41st president, so that is presumably the explanation. But it doesn't mention the term "Bush 41" anywhere in the article. Shouldn't that be added? --RenniePet (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it did seem to be missing. I added it in. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Presidency of George H.W. Bush

I think this deserves an article, instead of just a section on this article. What do you guys think?J'onn J'onzz (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article's presidency section is relatively short when compared to others such as Ronald Reagan. The rule of thumb has generally been create a separate article only when there is too much information to put into a single article. I don't think it is necessary at this point. Happyme22 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Congressional Years

I take issue with the description of Bush's senate races against Yarborough and Bentsen:

After winning the Republican primary, Bush faced his opponent, incumbent Democrat Ralph Yarborough. Yarborough made several personal attacks against Bush, calling him a "tool of the eastern kingmakers" and a right-wing extremist. Bush lost the general election.

This suggests that had Yarborough not conducted a negative campaign, Bush would have won the election.

However, former Congressman Lloyd Bentsen, a more moderate Democrat and native of Mission, Texas, defeated Yarborough in the Democratic primary.[9] Yarborough then endorsed Bentsen. Because there was no presidential election in 1970, turnout in Texas was unusually low in the general election. Bentsen defeated Bush 54% to 43%.

In turn, this suggests that had the voter turnout been greater, then Bush would have won against Bentsen.

These were not near misses for Bush, but solid losses. At the time, the "pundits" were generally agreed that his political career was over, which made his comeback all the more dramatic.--Janko (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the same implications from the statements that you do, but I will attempt to solve your concern. Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have modified the sentences:

After winning the Republican primary, Bush faced his opponent, incumbent Democrat Ralph Yarborough. Yarborough attacked Bush as a right-wing extremist, and Bush lost the general election.[12]

However, former Congressman Lloyd Bentsen, a more moderate Democrat and native of Mission, Texas, defeated Yarborough in the Democratic primary.[9] Yarborough then endorsed Bentsen and Bentsen defeated Bush 54% to 43%.[16]

Better? --Happyme22 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush's involvement with UFOs

I think this deserves a prominent place in the article. A majority of the Ufology community beleives that Pres. Bush "41" is the "go to man" for UFOs. He is supposedly thought to have a vast knowledge of UFO incidents in the US and abroad both because of his CIA directorship, Presidency, and corporate connections. There is a rumour that when Pres. Ford asked Dir. Bush about UFO incidents he remarked "Mr. President, this is information is on a need to know basis. And you do not need to know. The mere curiosity of the President will not suffice." PonileExpress (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do you have a citation for that? Happyme22 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

By citation, do you mean link? I'm obviously new to this. PonileExpress (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I am here to help. :) All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and come from reliable sources. If you read those two linked pages, you will be much better off. Happyme22 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question about citation - a citation is any reference to a source for the information. Usually on Wikipedia, it is in the form of a link to a website, but it can also be a reference to a page or article in a print publication (such as a book, magazine, journal, etc.). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I don't know how to cite a television program, but the History channel ran a special on UFOs in which they had experts discuss Bush's connection to UFOs as CIA director and his conversation with Ford that I mention above.PonileExpress (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, please see {{Cite video}}. That should help you out. Happyme22 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really getting the video citation, perhaps someone could show me an example? What are the prerequistites? What is the horizontal citation?PonileExpress (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Cite video}} is a template. You copy the template sytax (parameters) from the page (see below), and where there is an equal sign, you place the corresponding information from your video. An explanation of what the parameters mean and should contain is found further down on the page. Horizonal format and vertical format do the same thing. Not every parameter has to be filled in. You're basically taking publication and other information from the video and inputting it into the template. So while in the edit screen, you will paste the following in the article with the statement(s) that you are referencing it to:

 {{cite video |people= |date2= |month2= |year2= |title= |url= |format= |medium= |publisher= |location= |accessdate=2008-12-03 |time= 
|quote= }}

Then fill them in. At the bottom of the cite video page, there is an explanation of what every parameter means and what should go there. Hope that helps. Happyme22 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did include the video citation in the article but how do I link a reference from the main body to it?PonileExpress (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel that this article should include any reference to a rumor about a statement Bush may have made about UFOs. "Ufology" is not a recognized scientific discipline, and the nature of any such objects is, at best, controversial and clouded in pseudoscience and myth. Including this reference lends implied credence to this subject in the absence of scientifically validated evidence either proving or conclusively disproving the existence of UFOs in the colloquial useage of the term. Therefore, its inclusion significantly detracts from the overall credibility and objectivity of the article. 72.130.56.253 (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

May I offer the following citation" http://www.presidentialufo.com/bush_ufo_story.htm I hope this helps. ProfessionalCivilEngineer (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information

The Carlyle Group is a global private equity investment firm, based in Washington, D.C., with more than $89 billion of equity capital under management.[1] The firm operates four fund families, focusing on leveraged buyouts, growth capital, real estate and leveraged finance investments. The firm employs more than 575 investment professionals in 21 countries with several offices in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia; its portfolio companies employ more than 415,000 people worldwide. Carlyle has over 1200 investors in 68 countries.

The firm has employed political figures and notable investors. Some of these figures, such as former US President George H. W. Bush and former US Secretary of State James A. Baker III, have generated controversy stemming from allegations of conflicts of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.43 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation and relevance? Happyme22 (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa

{{editsemiprotected}} Phi Beta Kappa is an honor society; not a fraternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenPollock (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done removed the word altogether as Phil Beta Kappa is linked to its own article anyway. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of date

Bush is the father of George W. Bush, the 43rd and current President of the United States, and Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida.

The article is locked, but perhaps someone with the authority to fix that could do so? I just noticed that and realised that it hasn't been updated since the election. 70.112.192.130 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He is still the current president and will be until January 20, 2009. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

George W Bush is no longer president, so this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.60.187 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ONDCP

The information provided in Bush's cabinet box states that Bob Martinez was Director of ONDP from 1993-1993. However, the Office of National Drug Control Policy page contends that William_Bennett held this position from 1989-1991, and then Martinez held it from 1991-1993. Both can't be correct, can they?M. Frederick (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

make presidency a separate article

He is a living president, should get his own article for this period of time.--Levineps (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean move all the information about his presidency into a new article? If so, the answer is no. Information about his presidency must be retained here; a link to another article will not do.

If you want to create a Presidency of George H. W. Bush article and expand the information about the presidency that is already in this article, then that is okay. Happyme22 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Template

There's something up with the templates at the bottom. The Republican party box appears three times. From looking at the code, it seems that there used to be three templates - one for GOP pres. nominees, one for VP nominees, and one for RNC Chairmen - that were combined into one, without the transclusions on this page being altered. I'll remove two of them, since there's no point in displaying the same info three times. MAC475 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing Key Facts

The biographical summary omits key facts regarding Bush's most important 1988 campaign in which he won the Presidency, including (i) Bush employed controversial figure Lee Atwater as his campaign manager, (ii) Bush and Atwater were connected to the controversial Willie Horton advertisement, (iii) H.W. Bush also employed his son and future President W. on the campaign to work closely with Lee Atwater. These facts are well documented and cited, such as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogie_Man:_The_Lee_Atwater_Story. Earlier in his career when he was Chair of the Republican Party, H.W. had at Atwater's urging resolved a controversial dispute in which he selected Karl Rove as head of the College Republican Club - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/synopsis.html - though this fact is probably too detailed/tangential to include in this biographical summary.

The summary also omits a key fact in Bush's highly controversial pardon of his indicted former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger and five alleged accomplices just a few days before Weinberger's scheduled trial. In a public statement, the Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh claimed, among other things, that H.W. Bush himself had engaged in suspect activity by improperly withholding relevant records:

"Weinberger's early and deliberate decision to conceal and withhold extensive contemporaneous notes of the Iran-contra matter radically altered the official investigations and possibly forestalled timely impeachment proceedings against President Reagan and other officials. Weinberger's notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest-ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public. Because the notes were withheld from investigators for years, many of the leads were impossible to follow, key witnesses had purportedly forgotten what was said and done, and statutes of limitation had expired.

Weinberger's concealment of notes is part of a disturbing pattern of deception and obstruction that permeated the highest levels of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. This office was informed only within the past two weeks, on December 11, 1992, that President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his own highly relevant contemporaneous notes, despite repeated requests for such documents. The production of these notes is still ongoing and will lead to appropriate action. In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations." http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html#1

According to wikipedia's entry on Cap Weinberger the pardon was so significant that it may have cost Bush his reelection campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casper_Weinberger The fact that the Special Prosecutor claimed that Bush himself was involved in the conduct for which he granted the indicted suspects a full pardon is significant and should be included in the biographical summary. This is my first wikipedia edit so I am not sure what the next steps are to make corrections and would appreciate it if someone would explain. Thanks! Likesausages (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for taking the time to give some suggestions. First off, the section on his 1988 presidential campaign is simply a summary of the campaign and detailed information such as who he employed and why should go into the United States presidential election, 1988 article.

Second, regarding the Iran-Contra pardons, they are in the section entitled "Pardons" at the end of the presidency section.

Third, it might be quite beneficial for you to read WP:RS, because other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources of information to cite other articles. In other words, one Wikipedia article cannot serve as a reference to another. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply and all the information. First, I see your point about not mentioning Lee Atwater because it would be too detailed. The Willie Horton incident, however, was a major campaign event. In fact, it was in the biographical summary of Michael Dukakis regarding the same campaign. Content of a similar level of detail is in the portion of the wikipedia entry on Bill Clinton regarding his campaign:

"However, during the campaign questions of conflict of interest regarding state business and the politically powerful Rose Law Firm, at which Hillary Rodham Clinton was a partner, arose. Clinton maintained questions were moot because all transactions with the state were deducted prior to determining Hillary's firm pay.[26][13] Further concern arose when Bill Clinton announced that, with Hillary, voters would be getting two presidents "for the price of one".[27]".

Yet the only mention of Willie Horton incident in the Bush biographical summary is in passing without any explanation so that it appears to be an event that only reflected negatively on Dukakis: "Dukakis's response of "no" as well as the Willie Horton ad contributed toward Bush's characterization of him as "soft on crime."" That is only part of the story. The ad was widely criticized as an unfair campaign tactic. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9217204_ITM Thus not all significant views are reflected.

Second, I was aware of the Iran-Contra pardon description. My issue was "The fact that the Special Prosecutor claimed that Bush himself was involved in the conduct for which he granted the indicted suspects a full pardon is significant and should be included in the biographical summary." Instead, the summary omits that fact and states that Bush called Weinberger "a true patriot" as if the only issue was that Weinberger was wrongly indicted, not that Bush himself was involved and may have been protecting himself. Thus, not all significant views are reflected.

Third, thanks for the cite to WP:RS. I was citing to the wikipedia articles because they contained lots of cites to other materials, but in the future I will refrain from citing to wikipedia. I liked the part of your cite regarding the need for balance and to express all significant views. I also clicked on your name and see that you are an authority on these matters. I sincerely appreciate your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likesausages (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Likesausages (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not able to edit this page so I suggest the following two changes be made for the reasons stated at the end of the helpful exchange above:

1. Add to the end of the first paragraph in the Section entitled "Pardons": "Lawrence Walsh, the Special Prosecutor leading the investigation charged that despite repeated requests President Bush had withheld key records in the form of "his own highly relevant contemporaneous" notes and that "In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations." [cite to Statement of Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh quoted in Johnston, David, "Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'", The New York Times, December 25, 1992, http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html#1] The reference to Lawrence Walsh in the subsequent paragraph should then be abbreviated.

2. Add to the end of the third to last paragraph in the Section entitled "1988 Presidential Campaign": "The case of Willie Horton was criticized by the Washington Post "as being synonymous with racist politics" and Bush's campaign manager Lee Atwater subsequently apologized to Dukakis for the campaign's use of the Willie Horton example, saying, "It makes me sound racist, which I am not."" Washington Post and Lee Atwater quoted in "U.S. News' Barone accused Dem pollster Greenberg of "blood libel" for saying 1988 Willie Horton ads were race-baiting," Media Matters, November 17, 2004. http://mediamatters.org/items/200411170006

I would greatly appreciate it if someone with authority would make these changes or explain to me how I can make them. The exchange above helped focus my comments to these two revisions. I strongly believe the changes add balance consistent with the need to express all significant views.Likesausages (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like an explanation as to why these changes are not being made. I am not going to speculate as to why these changes are not being made. I simply would like a logical explanation and response as to why the foregoing two specific changes are not being made. Thank you. 74.68.120.31 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

The top interwiki is wrong. There are two iw to norwegian (bokmål) wiki, with the bottom one beeing the correct. 80.212.206.226 (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)