This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
several sites, including the Washington Post, suggest that in the future, bush will be viewed as one of the worst presidents in history, and that his presidancy is an overall failure. here's two sites that talk about it:
should this information be added to the article? after all, the Washington Post and george mason university seem to be ligitimate sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.231.123 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oh what's ligitimate anymore? Everyone's got an opinion so you can't cover them all. I think the sources are too speculative in nature, predicting a future, which although might come true, has yet to be. I say no. --Triadian05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Then include section on Bush being endorsed by God. This was suggested by Slate Magazine and it's their point of view. DasV18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed - It's a ridiculous idea. It's pure opinion that has no bearing or influence outside of talk shows and anti-Bush blogs. If the name of the article was Opinions of George W. Bush's Presidency, then this kind of tripe would be fitting. Historians will be debating this in 20 years and beyond when the effect of this presidency starts to sink in. --JJLatWiki21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to have a section that says he's the worst because of a magazine article then it is only fair that you point out that he was endorsed by God according to another article ... fair is fair. DasV21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I third that. If this kind of personal opinion fluff is now part of Wikipedia, I guess I'll start finding opinion pieces from pro-Bush people. --JJLatWiki20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that bush is a great president. The war has a reason and i think that if we left thay would take that as a sign of weakness. We need to complete the war they started not leave half way through. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris apodaca (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
agreed. you can compare the sign of weakness to Vietnam and the iranian problems a few years back. and you can compare the "getting into a war, trying to help, then getting out" ordeal to a garbage can. We knocked over a garbage can, spilled out whats inside, planned on putting it back in in a way that would be beneficial to all, then we would leave right in the middle? i think theres too many people that want to oppose the war simply to be part of the ongoing counterculture movement —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.240.169 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
i doubt he will be seen as the worst president in history. I'm not saying he will be the very best, but if we look at what kennedy had done. a very good president, however, he had MANY foreign affairs problems and nearly brought the world to nuclear war more than once. Today, do we necessarily view him in that light? no. will we see george bush in this light? i guess well find out. my vote is no
p.s. if you think bush is bad, just imagine if hilary were elected...
Though fact is that before Bush Junior became president, the whole world awed the US as the big shining example. Since Bush became president, all the non Muslim countries see the US as arrogant and selfish, having no moral constraint to damage others, if only the US benefits from it. The Muslim countries think you Americans are outright evil bent on destroying their culture. And yes, too many radical Muslims are ways over it. Though you have to put the war in Iraq in perspective:
from an American perspective, waging a war in Iraq, without having proper reasons for it, is merely a "mistake".
The perspective of other non Muslim countries (the whole world) is that you have insulted them, as they all said that there was no reason to go to war and the UN said there was no reason to go to war and the US then replied that "Who is not with us, is against us" (G.W. Bush). And everyone that was not with the US has been been demonised by the US authorities and media (do you remember the story about "freedom fries" etc.? Just because France said it did not want to participate in the invasion in Iraq, the US has been demonising France and half of continental Europe, I've been reading an artical on the front page of the Wall Street Journal full of insults to France that they were evil, bent on controling America etc. Since then I stopped reading the WSJ and American media). America was so much desillusioned by 9/11 and you were totally out of control, not only the president, the whole nation and media and you were insulting everyone outside the world. In this the terrorist attacks have been very successful, the US will never shine again the way it did. The US could not find support at the UN for invading in Iraq, because the whole world knew the white house was lying, Americans only in their desillusionment of fear didn't see it at that time. What G.W. Bush says then: the UN is useless, the US will do it its own way. And some countries followed you, not because they believed in the war, but because they wanted to be loyal to the US.
The perspective of the Muslim countries: G.W. Bush brands the invasion in Iraq before it starts as a "crusade". For Muslims, this is a very sensitive matter, as crusades were meant to destroy Islam. The US attacks Iraq for no reason, it is in war already with another Muslim country Afghanistan, Muslims did not see the Americans as liberators, they saw/see them as evil bent on their destruction. I know Muslim people from Muslim countries, they are full of fear and anger towards the US.
Now, you Americans, can comfortably choose to want to see only your opinion, but the fact is that this couple of Muslim terrorists that there were back in the time have grabbed all you Americans by the b***s. Before 9/11 America was the wonder country. 9/11 was the end of American hegemony. You were all so terrorized that you completely f***ed up. You don't have to include my opinion as I write it here in the article, I only want to show you some insights you can not see from the inside, but things that can be mentioned are:
The total US government, media and public were in a mass hysteria after 9/11. The US was out of this planet, had gone insane.
Reread the articles of the news media of the day and observe how you are insulting all the rest of the world, because you've gone insane and want a war, but no one wants to follow you.
Reread how America unilaterally declares a "crusade" on the Muslim world.
Accept that except for Tony Blair, no one takes the US seriously anymore on the world stage. You may have the guns, but people only listen when you have their hearts.
I'm no way a fan of George Bush. Let that go at that. However, "worst president in history" -- even if “true” -- probably would have no place here. It would represent a complex judgment call. NPOV and all that. It frankly doesn't assist anyone trying to research GWB. It provides no insight or direction. (...I might add, with a bit of apprehension, that "history" isn't over with... we could conceivably have worse coming down the pike some day...) Seriously, it doesn't help much. Those kinds of statements really don't belong here. In college history courses a healthy dose of caution is taught on the use of "facts." Facts are chosen for their perceived significance. Famously, the fact that Julius Caesar on a certain date crossed the Rubicon River--not a great feat of physical stamina in and of itself--with his army only is relevant and chosen because of its relevance as perceived by the historian. I was going to say, "Let's just stick with the facts in the Wikipedia article," but, of course, there could be genuine and bona fide arguments about the relevance of the facts chosen. If one feels overweeningly strongly about the subject of GWB, then perhaps one ought ethically to abstain from writing (other than to edit to remove vandalism, to wikify, etc). Or, pretend you're an attorney making an argument before an appellate court. You know that whatever statement you make will be scrutinized by "the other side" for factual errors, inconsistency, and one-sidedness. You know what "the other side's" points are. So deal with all bona fide points in as neutral, even-handed, and blinderless a manner as you can, so as to give no quarter to those who might wish to criticise your NPOV. (...getting down off my high horse...) Xenophon77715:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Way. Regardless of what one's oppinion is of GWB, how he will be viewed in the future is pure speculation and has no place here.--Leiding01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In favor. Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into the worst deficit ever, in fact he spent more money than every other president combined. As to adverse impact on the nation around the world, Jimmy Carter states "this Administration has been the worst in history". The damage that Bush has done on acceptance of the USA will take many years to repair. Gonezales16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be added under a condition. There was a poll done I believe asking political science or historian PhDs what they thought of Bush's presidency, with numbers and unbiased polling. If there was to be a small section added about that, I think that real, unbiased statistics "may be encyclopedic enough to add". However, quoting some TV, radio, or popular magazine newssources on their opinions of Bush is not right, but inaccurate as it represents media opinion, not necessarily the popular sentiment of the American public. Even some politically-charged books will be manipulating data, so they might not be good sources. And, of course, saying the "worst in all of history" is a very tough argument to make, as most people have little knowledge on the actions of their last few presidents, let alone the entire 53 presidents of the United States' history.Screwball2301:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about something along the following lines:
In 2006, he appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone with the legend "The Worst President in History?", <ref>"The Worst President in History". Rolling Stone Magazine. 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-18.</ref> a characterization later reiterated by the Washington Post opinion page.<ref>"He's The Worst Ever". Washington Post. 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)</ref> In a survey of professional historians conducted by George Mason University, 12% rated the Bush administration as the worst in all history, out of 81% rating it an overall failure.<ref>"Historians vs. George W. Bush". George Mason University's History News Network. 2004. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)</ref>
You can't officially name him the worst president in history because of some magazine and newspaper articles. All you're doing is echoing the words of another, and like an echo, they lack strength. You want to create a new article that would be supposidly based on fact, but your basing that "fact" on sources of opinion. That label, in my opinion, can't even be acuratly assigned, especially when the president is still in office! Every president is going to have some kind of problems with their administrations, no one is exempt. This is nothing more than an attempt of leftists who are getting caught up in the anti-Bush hype of our era. If that label were to be assigned at all, it should be given to Jimmy Carter who hardly did a thing right; or to William Harrison, who died without doing a thing as president. Flag-Waving American Patriot16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. It would be ridiculous to draw any conclusions one way or another. But it is a fact that Rolling Stone Magazine and the Washington Post opinion page, in articles written by eminent US historians, presented a case arguing that Bush was the worst president in American history. Furthermore, in a survey of historians, a large majority (81%) of respondents found the Bush presidency a failure, and a significant minority (12%) found it the worst in history. These are also facts. The issue is whether and how to include these facts into the article, not how to assess these facts or their merits. Silly rabbit17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a presumption insults the memory of Warren G. Harding. Bush may be the most disliked President in recent memory, but he's not the worst. GABaker21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but first, a thought. Those people supporting inclusion of this material in the article should ask themselves a question, and remember, be honest with yourself, because if you lie to yourself, why should anyone else trust you: Why do you want this material included in the article? Is it because you, personally, agree with the opinion, and you are advocating that POV? Or do you believe that inclusion of the material is a positive change to the article? Those against inclusion should ask themselves the converse question. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be blind to the motivations and POV of its editors, and achieves that goal if the content is ultimately NPOV regardless of who added it and why. But you can filter your own edits by determining what your motivations are, because those motivations may color your judgment of whether or not the change is positive.
My own analysis is that the assertion, by itself, is obviously POV, and should not be included on its own merits. As for the justification that a prominent magazine published the opinion, and inclusion in this article is simply reporting on the existence of that magazine article, there are already multiple articles that discuss criticisms and perceptions of the man and his presidency, linked prominently from the appropriate section of this article. We have to draw the line somewhere on what gets included here and what gets shoved into one or both of those articles. Since this article is already pretty long, it seems more appropriate not to encumber it with a mention of every magazine article that comes along, especially when there are already other places well-suited to catch such information. --DachannienTalkContrib04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you. This kind of coolheaded, unpolitical response is exactly what needed to be said here. Note that I have filtered the edit, and not added it to the page. But at least proposing on a specific edit, rather than a general controversial claim, has focused the discussion in this more productive direction. I believe the consensus is no: don't add. Silly rabbit10:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are quite a few reliable sources who already call Jimmy Carter the "worst president", and I don't believe the Carter article mentions it. (If it does, it shouldn't.) - Crockspot12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES because the Washington Post is correct. Jimmy Carter needs to be hailed as the best president in American history. I wish he was running in 2008! I LOVE JIMMY CARTER :) Viva the peacemakers! Viva Jimmy Carter! And for the conservatives/religious folk I can quote their own favorite book "Blessed are the peacemakers" :) 24.6.23.4400:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO. Even though I think Bush is a bad president overall, labelling him as the worst president in U.S. history is obviously a strong subjective point of view which many disagree with. Facts, not opinions, should be written. Not everyone has the same opinion, and thus it would not be an encyclopedia if you stated comments such as these. (This is stressing the point above that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.) Moreover it will start countless wars among the Wikipedia geeks. If the editors agree to label George Bush as such then Wikipedia's reliability will sink to a new level, lower than it is already. --143.58.196.12010:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the Rolling stone referance since Time is featured
From the article it is a biased perspective protecting the integrity of the president instead of providing accurate information. This can be seen in the article where it says george bush was on the cover of time magazine twice but completely ignore the fact he was on the cover of rolling stone. It further states that time rated him man of the year while leaving out that in rolling stone on the cover it states is he worst the president.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigpoppa (talk • contribs) 04:06, May 17, 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Rolling Stone special feature article was written by Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University endowed professor of American history. Those credentials are not something to dismiss so lightly. Silly rabbit01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of 2000 Election
I think that the phrase "upholding Florida law" should be included in the sentence about the Supreme Court decision in the 2000 election. Some seem to think it is unnecessary. I feel that it clarifies what happened, since the Supreme Court did not actually decide the election. It simply upheld Florida law, which mandates how the Electoral Votes for Florida are to be selected. I would like some feedback. Thank you. Sdth17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to prove that it did have that effect with citations to published primary sources - in this case law journal articles would be the minimum acceptable source. --BenBurch18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tvoz. Ben, there is no law journal article that would constitute proof that the Florida Supreme Court misstated Florida law. I mention this only so that your comment isn't misinterpreted by the right-wingers as a license to rewrite history. JamesMLanetc19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get raked over the coals if I refer to the wrong intentions of others, but JamesMLane can get by with badmouthing "rightwingers"?? I'm confused....
As for the Supreme Court, yes it overruled the Florida Supreme Court by UPHOLDING Florida law. Florida law says the votes must be certified by a certain date. The Supreme Court simply upheld that law, and said that the legislature, NOT THE COURT, had the right to mandate the manner in which the Electoral College votes are cast. However, I'm not trying to get into a debate about Florida. I simply wanted to insert three words to clarify what the ruling was: "upholding Florida law". If references are all you need, I will endeavor to find those references. However, I find it rather odd that any of you would question this, because any informed student of history knows this fact. Sdth20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutional Scholar Mark Levine for one clearly disagrees with this assessment, so you need to provide some cites saying this is what the effect was. Note also that if there is significant opposing opinion (and there is) that also becomes part of this and the three words expand into a brief discussion of the effect of Bush v. Gore that will not quite have the effect you intend. So, this is best left out of the article. --BenBurch21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a link to this information from Mark Levine? Do you mean Mark Levin? I'd be interested to read what he has to say. Sdth15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use all caps; it's the equivalent of yelling and often considered rude.
I also insist that you specifically name the points of contention and alleged bias. A general accusation of bias is insufficient. --ElKevbo00:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I assume you, Politics rule, are completely nonbiased? Except for the foaming-rabid accusations? (Damn that liberal bias!) 75.5.181.17601:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that you might be biased as well? This is the place where you work contructively, and not by mere force. I can also start accusing you of pro-Bush bias and dismiss all of your claims, but that would simply be counterproductive. If you have a problem with specific details or statements, you are welcome to bring up a nice, healthy debate. But by following the tactic you are using now, I doubt you will acomplish much here. Ktoto8920:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here wait, the caps statement above, is clearly biased, and thus needs to be judged irrelevant. it is obviously pro "RIGHT" with the "SO MANY NON RIGHT THINGS-LEFT" comment Aqwiz06:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a terrible idea. There is already another article and a section here on criticisms, and a section on bushisms is just a really stupid idea.
Very good. Now should not his failings as a president be mentioned in the first paragraph? why go into history. a couple of paragraphs on what kind of president he is. Xavier cougat20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Points to consider
This is something that I hope people will keep in mind when editing this article in the future as well as the aticles of future presidents. Too much unjust criticism gives the person you are talking about a free hand to do anything. For some reason, everyone who hates President Bush wants to flock to this article and find a way to weasle bad stuff into it. Ok, it's not like I don't know why but they need to stop even if for their own good. The more histarical criticism of the President they try to put on this site and others just give the President permission to do anything he wants. It works like this, if you call someone the anti-christ for parting his hair on the wrong side you loose all credibility. If you criticize someone even when they do the right thing, you loose all credibility. Thus, then the President really does do something that is worthy of criticism and legitimate people want to put that up it is seen by others as more of the same crazy talk as before and no one takes it seriously. The recession in the economy that hit in 2001 was predicted 2 years in advance. To say that that recession was the President's fault (either Clinton or Bush) is ignorance of how markets work. President Bush was being blamed for the recession before he even took office. Some people actually believed as they didn't know any better but what is more probable is that the people saying this had a 'need' to believe it. They wanted to believe it and start blaming evey problem in the world on President Bush and so they did even though they knew better. You can usually tell those people becuse they refuse to say 'President' Bush and always refer to him as 'Mr.' Bush which is not his title as long as he holds that office. Now we have a situation where in so much garbage has been laid at the President's feet that he isn't listening anymore because he doesn't think anyone is going to talk to him in good faith. He thinks eveyone just wants to catch him saying something wrong to lay even more stuff at his blame.
The reason that all of this affects the article (besides how our everyday lives are being manipulated by the Feds) is that now legitimate people who have legitimate critical evidence to call the President on feel that they can't lest they be grouped together with the same crowd of people that call President Bush the worst president ever because he owns a dog. Some of us have real issues that we want to see incorporated in a fair article but are drowned out by people that think the U.S. invades Iraq to steal oil (which if true it means that it is the most expensive haist in history). I am asking PLEASE eveyone, stay in reality and keep the article fair if for no other reason then so that the real life arguments can stand on their merrits. If you really think that President Bush is such a bad president then you shouldn't need to put crazy stuff up here as the truth would be bad enough.
The Hurricane Katrina section needs work and a new section about the recent immigration law that tries to enforce 'English Only' onto the incoming population should be created and done factually and fairly. It should be no supprise I don't like the new law as it increases the disadvantage that Louisiana has to the other Anglophone states but on Wikipedia we need to be factual. If we aren't factual then we might as well not even have the thing up.--Billiot15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new law wants English only? can you give me a URL? 'Too much unjust criticism' where do you see that in this article. I think the article is too pro-Bush. Xavier cougat16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"They also must show they are trying to learn English..."
I think this is pretty telling and I am in the process of getting a copy of the actual law from a lawmaker so that it can be reiviewed. America has had a very long history of Anglophones forcing their language on other people and this law is just another example of Louisiana being at a sevier disadvantage to the Anglophone, common law states. Why isn't there a section to allow Francophones into Louisiana? That is my question that no one wants to answer or can't with a straght face.--Billiot17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - George Bush did not win the election
The statement in the third paragraph that Bush won the 2000 election is false. He lost the election and was given the presidency by the Supreme Court which stopped the recount, which has later proven that Bush lost the election. There were also so many irregularities in the 2004 election that it is highly unlikely that he won that election either. Gonezales16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but under the election system in the United States, Bush did win the election. Bush won the electoral college, which is how presidents are elected. The controversy surrounding the election doesn't change that. Also note Bush is not the first candidate to win the election without gaining the plurality. - auburnpilottalk16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it do you? Bush lost Florida in 2000, and thus also the electoral college. The Supreme Court stopped the recount before that fact was learned. Gonezales16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Bush won the popular vote in Florida, he won the electoral votes and thus claimed both Florida and the national election. I'm afraid you may be the one not getting it. We work in fact, not theory of what could have happened if something else didn't. - auburnpilottalk16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that gets into a funny area; US federal election law actually only requires that each state provide electors to the electoral college, and says nothing regarding the requirements of how they are chosen. Thus the threat by Brother Jeb's administration to just send a slate of proBush electors if the conflict continued. But Florida law states that the "will of the people" be assessed as accurately as possible to determine said electors, which can run into some obvious conflicts with other laws regarding deadlines etc., depending on which law you think takes precedence over the other. Thus, one valid position is to argue that Bush's election was valid by federal law, but not by Florida law. Gzuckier18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are an Anglophone but that shouldn't hinder you from being able to read the CONSTITUTION which is written in English. It is funny that with English being my second Language I can understand well enough to know that George Bush did in fact win the election regardless of how I or anyone else may feel about that. This is exactly the kind of crazy comments that are continuelly made that prevent real and legitimate criticism of the President from being given the proper credit.--Billiot17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billiot, the question is: Is being elected President the same as winning the election? I think the terms are similar, but do not mean precisely the same thing, so the distinction can be drawn. As an aside, I reviewed the Constitution and can find no language supporting a role for the Supreme Court in adjudicating Presidential elections. Is it implied by some other power of the Court, or did I simply miss it? --Ssbohio17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tell me you need me to explain it to you. I will but you might just want to R-E-A-D the constitution instead of just reviewing it. The answer is right there. Again, I will explain it if you want me to. --Billiot17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well one of the definitions of the word elected is sort of like promoted, so he was elected in the sense that he was promoted to the presidency. You still don't get it that he lost the vote in the state of Florida, by reason of not getting as many votes in the state of Florida as Gore. Had Florida's electoral votes been correctly given to Gore, Gore would be the president today, in all likelihood. What the Supreme court did was stop any further recount, and the votes counted so far led to Bush being incorrectly given the electoral votes from Florida, and hence the presidency. Gonezales18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzales, I'm a card-carrying leftist/liberal whatever and even I think your argument is without merit. Whatever the Supreme Court did or did not do or should have done is irrelevant; the final outcome of the matter was that Bush was awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes. Tarc18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will explain. First, dispite the name, the electoral college was not meant to elect the president. The electoral college was meant to nominate people to congress so that congress (specifically the house of representatives) could elect the president. This was America's attempt to immitate the British system of the time but take into account the different states. The election by congress was not meant to be a second chance system when the original broke down, it was meant to be The System. This is why there is no where in the constitution a section to talk about the popular vote. Members of the college are selected by the state legislatures in a manner that the legislature sees fit. Since the president must negotiate treaties on the states' behalves the states must have a say in his selection. Since he is also the head legislator of the Congress then congress will have the final say one who gets selected. However, it was thought to be unfair if some great man like George Washington gets 90 percent of the votes but looses to a guy that got only 1 percent due to political back stabbing. This clause was originally meant to mean that should all the states choose a particualr person, say because he wants to increase the power of the states, then congress could not refuse him simply because they feared loosing power. This loop hole in the selection process allowed the creation of the two party system. If there are only two choices then one will have to have a majority of the nominations over the other and thus force the hand of congress everytime. In this way, political parties are getting around the spirit of the constitution and rigging the election every 4 years. That is why we only have two choices. Now it is true that America is far more democratic today then at the time of the founding and people make arguements about the electoral college versus the direct vote. Changing it requires a constitutional amendment. Currenlty it is only by state choice that popular votes are used to decide who goes to the electoral college. All of the states could if they wanted to, stop this practice tomorrow and no one could stop them. The 2000 election we see the same rigging of the election between the Democrat party and the Republican party. What we also see is when the count happened that it was close. Close enough to say "well a small error could change the outcome so let us make sure that there is no error." And thus they did a recount. The recount was the same result, Bush won. But, for the Democrats, they needed to believe that Bush lost so that their guy could win and they were close so they figured, if we recount in heavly Democrat areas then it might turn the tide. So they did another recount. Bush still won. They claimed irregularities and wanted to do a fourth recount. Then all the stuff about the Chads, hanging, pregnant and all what not was theorized and put into practice in an attempt to make Bush loose the election. There were incnsistant standards being implimented in the deturmining of who voted for who and then the law suits started. There were questions of federal law at issue and questions of state law at issue. Before the first law suit was ever filed Bush had already been seen to be the winner of the election three times. Neither party was assuming the other in good faith and everyone was trying to get a leg up. Because this was a question of a Federal election, then any decision from a state court would be moved to federal court. There is also the Equal Protection Clause that made it a direct federal issue from the start. Now, no one liked that the courts were getting involved. Everyone agrees that that is not the right way to get the conclusion of an election. However, we need to be clear about the basic facts. Bush had already won the election, first count, recount and second recount. All the supreme court at the time did was prevent the conclusiion of a Fourth recount that Bush would have won anyway. The court saw an extreme Equal Protection violation in the actions of the proponants for the recount and the court simply prevented them from possibly illigally taking the election away from the person already declared the winner.
- Now I know I lost you somewhere in there. You might be saying to yourself that I don't know what I am talking about. You might have a bunch of really bad things to say about me that you are formulating right now. But that doesn't matter. The election ballots are Public Record. Please, by all means, go and count. Count to your hearts content. They are all there waiting to be counted. Please go and be among the houndreds of political action groups and international newpapers that have recounted the ballots time and again. All with the same result. Bush won. It was close, and not a landslide but he still won. It doesn't matter what you or I think about him. He won. If we don't like it we can call for a constitutinal amendment. Maybe that is a good idea, amend the constitutiion because we don't like the outcome of one election. Somehow I hear 1860 in my head from somewhere.
- Anyway, I digress. Please refrain from bringing up this old, dead topic. The supreme court did not hand the presidency to President Bush and neither did he win the popular vote. Due to election rigging of the two party system he slid in on the nominations and bypassed congress which would have selected him anyway. That is all there is to it. --Billiot18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all can agree that Dubya was not elected in a clear, clean manner. Gore got most of the votes in the US. Most Americans wanted him. To me the Supreme Court should have taken that into consideration. It is a bad system. Most people do not want Dubya now but we have to put up with him till his term is up. He barley squeaked by in 2004. It has been a tragedy. And we cannot even say anything bad about him in Wiki. It is a great tragedy. Xavier cougat19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think wrong. I don't agree at all. This discussion should be moved to a blog. It has nothing to do with editing this article. - Crockspot19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you respond to it if you think it is a blog? It should be mentioned in the article that the win was not clean. And do not respond if you think this is blogging. Xavier cougat19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded because you made an assertion that "we can all agree". We clearly do not agree. You have a POV, which is fine for a blog, but not for Wikipedia. This entire section is veering into blogish discussion, that is fair for me to point out. I'll reply wherever and whenever I see fit. Or not. - Crockspot19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to say that 'most Americans' didn't want him. We don't know that. Most Americans didn't vote and as I have already pointed out, it was supposed to be the congress's selection anyway. By now the entire thing is moot. I ask that people please stop suggesting that the statement in the article that says he WON the election be taken out. He won. If you don't believe me go count the ballot. They are still being stored in Florida. The supreme court is not allowed to take in the will of the people (though it might be nice if they did because then Abortion would still be banned) they are only allowed to consider valid legal questions. You would be asking the court to do what you accuse the court of doing in the first place that you think is so bad because it accknowedged President Bush as the winner of an eleciton. At least there is some sort of election. And, why do you come to Wiki just to say bad things about him. I have legitimate conserns that I want to get into the article but they are being blocked because people think that I am like all of you who think he is satan incarnate bacuase he doesn't have a (D) next to his name, oh and he owns a dog and combs his hair on the wrong side and was able to cause the 2001 economic recession before he was even sworn into office. --Billiot19:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK most of the 'voters' did not want him. and people do not want him now. What are your legitimate concerns? He comes his hair on the wrong side? which is the correct side? The article seems like a white wash to me. not enough critism. Most people think he is a bad president. Xavier cougat19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these most people you speak of? My point is that by people always saying random, nonsense, crazy stuff about him like he is satan because he spit on the white house lawn and uses non standard southern grammar in his speach pattern it then becomes impossible for a real concern just as his recent promotion of an English Only Law that is clearly racist from my point of view from being considered valid and credible. --Billiot19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? He lost the popular vote in 2000 which means most voters did not want him. And according to polls most people think he is doing a bad job. If there was an election now he would be out the door in a millisecond. yahoo 'failure' and who comes up. do you read the papers at all? English only racist? Thats the one thing I thing he has the right idea. Who said he was 'satan'? He just a bad president. Actually seems like a nice guy to have fun with. He is very funny and comfortable and down to earth. Just not a good prez. Xavier cougat19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you seem to gloss over the fact that he did win the majority in 2004...by your assertions that means the majority did want him. The fact remains the same; GWB was elected by the electoral college as all preceding presidents have been. There really is nothing more to it at this point. - auburnpilottalk19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English Only Laws are in fact racist, or at least elietist. They decriminate against Louisiana and her needs. Louisiana is a Froncophone, Civil law state and it is not right of the rest of America to ask us to change or coerce us using the abuse of the 16th amendment. It is also not right for the U.S. to allow only Anglophones into America and deney Francophones from Haiti or Africa or dare I say, France from immigrating to Louisiana. Maybe you don't agree that it is racist but can you at least see why les Louisiannes have a problem with it?--Billiot19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Louisiana is not a 'race' There is nothing in the Consititution that says we have to let *anyone* in the country. It protects the citizens not foreigners.
Bush won. STOP! The Electoral College decides the winner of an election when it comes to the President. The Supreme Court awarded Bush Florida's vote. The popular vote just influences the electoral college. Bush won from the electoral votes. Sorry but this is how it works. Mrld22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bush lost. Stop! The votes were cast, and not counted until years later, when the true results were learned. No one is questioning how the popular vote works or how the electoral votes work. The fact is that no one knew until all the votes were re-counted what the true result of the election was, and that result is that Bush lost, and was given the presidency by the supreme court which stopped the recount. See the image to the right here. The wording in the article is false and needs to be clarified. A correct statement would be "Despite losing the 2000 election, Bush was awarded the presidency due to vote counting inadequacies." Gonezales23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you don't understand the most basic concept of presidential elections in the United States. Bush did not lose the 2000 election, the article is not false, and no matter what image you produce, this will not change. Seriously, maybe you should read Elections in the United States. - auburnpilottalk00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: Unless you are here to discuss changes to the article, go elsewhere. Please stop treating this page like a forum for political discussion. This is not how the page is to be used. - auburnpilottalk23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point that is being made in the Elections in the United States article is that you do not have to win the popular vote to win the electoral vote. That is not the issue that I am addressing. It is also a stretch in that article to say "winning more electoral votes", because while Bush was given more votes, he did not win them in the election. The issue that I am addressing is that when the votes were counted not all the votes were counted, and a later recount showed that Bush lost the electoral vote and the election. Since the file above is dated Sept 5, 2006 we can see that it took almost 6 years to learn the truth. However you can also weasel out of it by saying that Bush officially won the 2000 election, but that would be misleading because it shelters the fact that he did not win by the fact that the word "official" means "because I said so" and does not denote any need for factuality. It would be much better to be a lot more accurate than that. Gonezales03:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The graph shown above is not correct and it is of a doubious source. The current atricle that states that he won the 2000 election is acurate. If you don't believe that your time would be better spent not creating false graphs and going to count the ballots that are still public record. As to my knowledge, they have been recounted by a number of international groups, American political groups and Newspapers; all with the same result no matter how much they didn't like the result. George Bush won that election. It really has become silly for some people to keep bringing it up. As to the other comment about Louisiana, The federal government is supposed to look out for the well being of the states and not try to annialate a group of people who are American Citizens from birth and have lived in Louisiana from the time before "America" as in the "United States" even came into existance. I am personally shocked that you can't understand that. We see more and more Anglophone incursion into Louisiana so that now her native Francophone population is seen as foriengers. If the Federal Government really does want to promote English Only and only allow English speaking immigrants into the country them maybe it is best for Louisiana to get out so we can decide our own Immigration policy. It is astounding you that you can't see the inheirent injustice in this. --Billiot03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my last arguement that I hope will put the entire issue of the 2000 election to rest. After this arguement no one except the completely self dilutioned will rightly be able to say the President Bush lost the election. Ok, ready, everyone got a copy of the constitution? The first think you should to is read the section I posted above then come back. Now, people are always talking about the electoral votes but forget about the electors that actually do the voting. The constitution is very specific about when the Electors, who are real physical people that actually have to get together and sit down and cast real physical votes, should vote but is very vague on the selection of the electors by the legislature. All the states have decided to adopt an election of the electors but we must remember that the electors are still federal officials and all the aspects of their job fall under the federal constitution. So, please find the place in the constitution where it list the term limits and tenure of office for an elector. Oh wait, sorry, it's not there. Hmm, I wonder why. Now, everyone has been assuming since the very founding of the federal constitution that once the electors cast their votes that they loose their office but this is not the case legally and constititionally speaking. They actually retain their office until they are replaced by the legislature. It is not the election, selection or what not of the electors that is at issue in being uniform per the constitution through out the country on a single day but of the electors actually voting. Should the legislature fail for whatever reason to choose new electors just before a presidential election that really doesn't cause a problem, all they have done is not replaced the current set of electors who then legally could go and vote. Now, I don't remember who Florida voted for in the election prior to 2000 but whoever they were could then go and vote with the full ability to take into consideration the will of the people, the best interest of the people (which may or may not be the same as the will of the people) or (and most likely) the selfish interest of their own party. Because this was a legal possibility, by preventing the replacement of the former electors with new ones the former electors could have come to vote regardless of the out come of the election. This created a little known Due Process and Equal Protection violation on the part of the recounters. Federal law doesn't care about ballots or chads or whatever, but it does care about the electors of all states voting on the same day per the constitution. By trying to continue a useless recount thus prevent the selection of new electors to replace the old ones it would have forced the state of Florida to call the old electors to the capital and have them vote. In the interim they could be bribed, threatened with violence or had all sorts of crazy appeals from all sides coming at them. Thus we see a situation where the laws are going to be broken. President Bush had already been declared the winner but the Democrats wanted to delay the seating of new electors and allow the old ones to vote again. That was what the recounts were really all about. Gore was never going to get the votes he needed to win. Everyone involved already knew that. The best they could hope for is to have the old electors, who I suspect voted for Clinton but I am not sure, come and try to convince them to vote for Gore based on the "I won the popular vote across the whole country" arguement. If you don't like Bush that is fine, I really don't care and I have my own bones to pick as I am sure everyone from New Orleans does with both parties but it is acurate that he won the 2000 election, selection, or what ever you want to call it. He stands on the most solid of legal grounds there is if you will just READ the constitution and take the words to mean what they SAY and not whatever you want them to mean. Honestly, I never knew so many people in America of all places knew NEWSPEAK or had read and loved 1984.--Billiot10:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the source of your graph that you are using to try to change the article was created by a 22 year old college student who is studying auto racing from what I can tell. There is no information posted about where he got the graph, which I think was made up, and he displays no background or knowledge on political science or law, federal or state. --Billiot10:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the chart the numbers came from The New York Times. Here is what we can do, change 'won the election' to 'became president'. No one will disagree with that. Gonezales12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more think for everyone to think about in regards to the issue that I would like to see mentioned in the article, I am pretty sure the first amendment is still in force. I know that the federal government has been violating the clause about religion with the so called "national house of Prayer" but Free Speach is still active isn't? Why is it that the government can not tell you what you can and can't say, how you can or can't spend your money in regards to giving it to politicians but can tell you what language you can and can't learn and in what language you can and can't speak. I seems to me to be an extreme case of violation of the 1st amendment. Let us be clear, the constitution doesn't say that the government must protect feedom of speach but only for citizens. It says that the congres shall make no law that hinders freedom of speach for anyone in the world. Period. This makes it bad enough that they want to force English onto immigrants but it is made worse by the fact that they are also doing it to people in Lousiana who Are Already American Citizens.--Billiot10:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of you. Bush won! He's President. He might have stolen the election and he might have not. We will put in the third paragraph: Bush came to power through the highly contested Elction of 2000. That s a compromise. All you people calling Bush a tyrant and a cheater need to stop making potical statemnts and read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Or else leave Wikipedia and join a political forum. Bush is in power like it or not. He's president. It's history. Debate historians over this issue because he's in power. The elctoral college's votes were cast and Bush won then. Mrld12:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't work for me. If you'd like to change the current wording "Bush won the presidency in 2000" to "Bush was elected president in 2000" I have no problem. We will not, however, rewrite history. Presidents are elected; they do not "come to power". - auburnpilottalk15:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine if Auburnpilot wants something a little different how about this: Bush was elected in the highly disputed Election of 2000. It has won in it and it was also highly disputed. Is everybody happy now? Mrld18:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attempts at a compromise, but the sentence already reads "Bush won the presidency in 2000 as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest." To change it to "Bush was elected in the highly disputed Election of 2000 as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest." would be really redundant. - auburnpilottalk19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what does work for you? It already says he was elected president in the first paragraph, what the third paragraph is about is the controversy around the election and a few things he did once he became president. Since the paragraph is about the controversy, don't say won, don't say elected, just say:
As the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest, while Bush lost the nationwide popular vote, the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore stopped the recount process in Florida, giving Bush a 537-vote margin in that state, and thus a majority of electoral votes, which allowed him to become president.< ref>Years later a full recount indicated that he actually would have lost the election to Al Gore by less than 200 votes. A full recount had not been requested at the time.< /ref>
Unfortuantly this article Florida election recount would seem to contradict the New York Times which seems to be the basis for your argument. President Bush was elected by the electoral vote with 5 points ahead of Al Gore. As people have already stated, in the United States, you are not elected by the people directly to be the President but rather through the electoral college system. Now there were 2 decisions casted by the Supreme Court, 1 being voted 7-2 that there were Equal Protections issues using different counting methods in different counties and the last 5-4 halting the alternate procedures. Now when the electors met, they casted the electoral votes towards George W. Bush certifying him as the winner of the state of Florida thus winning the election. Regardless of how you feel, Bush still won the election. ViriiK13:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am referring to is under the section "Review of All Ballots Statewide", which of course was undertaken later contrary to the article, or how else would the results be known? The results of a review of all ballots statewide give Gore the election by less than 200 votes. Gonezales02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the criticism section deleted
There was no libel there. First he is a public figure. Second it was all source. This is not a place to promote one's political party. Xavier cougat17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could explain why you think it should be deleted. The section is properly sourced, complies in every way with WP:BLP, and is in no way libelous. - auburnpilottalk17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah what? BLP doesn't (yet) say that everything in an article about a living person must be glowing praise, sourced criticism is very encyclopedic if given appropriate weight. --W.marsh17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xavier cougat is making a political statment. A section on Bush's criticisms need to be presented in a neutral way. Follow Wikipedia's Guidelines Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not. A section on why people don't like Bush may be needed but not with mudslinging and making this article partisan. Mrld22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He visited England recently, I think it was two years ago, I can't remember. Why isn't it here? Theres a paragraph on the Queens' section (elizabeth II) when she visited the President in 2007 so why not mention his visit to England? Or is it here, I can't find it.Tourskin20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comparison
Having just read openly a "kind" wikipedia article about Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, I was surprised to notice the amount of controversy mentioned in this article about the President of the United States. It is my intimate understanding that many of Hugo Chaves' reforms and efforts are equally if not more controversial with many critics. The critics' opinions aren't emphasized in the article about him. My question is why the critics' of President George W. Bush have a louder voice than those of Hugo Chavez, if the two articles are compared.
71.209.139.21902:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Normal white kid[reply]
Appearantly you missed sentences in the lead such as, "Venezuelans are split between those who argue he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who allege he is an autocrat who has mismanaged the economy," the whole criticism section on Chavez's page, or the entire article entitled Criticism of Hugo Chávez. If you still think there is a problem though, I encourage you to start editing the respective pages.--Mbc36213:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Text for search results
I know this is a bit off-topic, but I noticed that this article (like others I've noticed recently as well) has some sort of meta-tag description that yields text in the google search result that says something like "Open-source encyclopedia article provides personal, business and political information about the President, his policies, and public perceptions and ..." as opposed to just the opening text of the article. Does anyone know how this text can be added to articles, and what formatting we should put it under? If you could reply on my talk page (in addition to here) that would be great. Thanks.- Bonus Onus19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That text is from www.dmoz.org . It can't be changed easily because you'll need to contact an editor over there to change it. It's pretty unbias as it is, isn't it? --Gary King16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bush campaigning on Clinton fatigue in the 2000 campaign?
I have added a few words about the fact that one of the things that Bush campaigned on was "weariness of the Clinton administration." My evidence was two-fold:
I found a reference to a poll showing that 53% of the population was "just plain tired" of the Clinton administration and I even found a reference where Dick Cheney used the sentence "We are all a little weary of the Clinton-Gore routine." That seems to me to be good evidence that Bush campaigned on weariness of the Clinton administration, and furthermore, if people google "Clinton fatigue 2000" lots of references turns up. Aaron Bowen has repeatedly removed these few words and only after removing it several times cited in response the following URL: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.htm that Clinton had high "job" approval ratings. However, even within that poll, there was evidence of low personal approval ratings. Anyway, I don't think it disproves the statement that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue.
Here's the question: can you find a reputable source that claims that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue? If so, you should be able to quote and cite the source in the article. Jpers3618:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's A question. The internal deliberations of a campaign are often secret. But, how do we know that Bush campaigned on lower taxes? Because he used those words. However I found a reference on CNN to the Cheney convention quote I linked to above using that as an example of Clinton fatigue. I also found an excerpt of a NYT article saying this:
The point I made and Keith rejected ( because it doesn't look as good for Bush (his hero)), is that it's okay to mention there was Clinton fatigue (there was), but it's incorrect to say the country was was weary of Clinton, which he put in there, since he had the the highest approval ratings of any president since WWII. Something like "Although Clinton had the highest approval ratings of any president since WWII when he left office, polls show the country disapproved of his personal life and his scandals and Bush campainged on that weariness." Would be fine, it presents both sides of the story and unlike Keiths previous line "He campaigned on the country's weariness of the Clinton Administration" isn't misleading—how can the country be weary of something it approves of in record numbers? Aaron Bowen17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued reference to Bush as my hero is neither funny, nor relevant. It does make me think there are childish people on Wikipedia, and my perspective is not welcome. Perhaps you want only like-minded people editing your encyclopedia? Aaron, you could have improved my edits, but instead you just reverted my changes. It was only after several revertings that you even made your suggestion. You are re-writing history, Aaron. BTW, it is possible to be happy with the state of the country and the economy but tired of the scandals. The polls you are citing reference job approval, and those same polls showed low "personal approval." In other words, the polls you cite make my case stronger! You seem okay with saying that there was Clinton fatigue, but not okay to say that there was weariness. I consider that phrasing synonymous. KeithCu04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... an encyclopedia is not really the place to argue original theories about an election, even if they're backed up by primary sources. Write an article for a political publication, it sounds like an interesting topic. But if an article on this doesn't already exist... cobbling together statistics and quotes to make some point isn't what Wikipedia is for. --W.marsh17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that weariness of the clintons is a novel political theory. I googled the phrase "Clinton fatigue" and found 16,100 references. KeithCu04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point here. Whether or not the theory is novel is irrelevant. What is relevant is that unless you can find a reliable source which suggests that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue, this theory should not be in the article. Nil Einne09:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing that references are important. The current questions are: Is "clinton fatigue" an acceptable thing to say, but not "weariness?" Are those phrases synonymous? Is Cheney using "weary" proof that bush campaigned on weariness? Is the quote from Bush's parents above better? KeithCu10:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to understand things here. You cannot use Bush's campaign quotes to show that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue/weariness/whatever you want to call it. Using primary sources in this manner is OR, as others have tried to explain. What you need are reliable secondary sources which suggest that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue/weariness/whatever. When these secondary sources are found, it's probably best to use whatever they use. If they call it Clinton fatigue, then so do we. If they call it weariness then so do we. Until we have sources, it's pretty pointless arguing over whether to call it weariness/fatigue/tiredness/whatever Nil Einne16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I originally stated when I reverted your initial edit: Yuck! I hate that format and the very idea that we would seek to hide or reduce the perceived number of references. It's a solution in search of a problem. It complicates navigation for users with little benefit. In fact, it's actually a detriment to hide references. I'll wait for others to chime in as I've already reverted this edit once. --ElKevbo15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support reverting back to a simple {{reflist}}. I'm not sure how it's working for the rest of you, but this new "scroll box" forces me to use two separate scroll bars to view the references. It's really obnoxious to not be able to easily view the references. - auburnpilottalk18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see from the history, a lot of vandalism is going on in the page at this time. I don't like him either but that doesn't mean that I want his page vandalized. Maybe locking the page for a while would be in order. --Maxl18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already semiprotected and is unlikely to be unsemiprotected anytime soon. However it's not likely to be fully protected either as the vandalism is only a few times a day. Even tho this is perhaps a high level for a semi-protected article it's not enough to warrant full protection. Protection is only used when vandalism reaches a level that it's uncontrollable e.g. every few mins. Most of the vandalism here is quickly reverted. Besides that, fully protecting it serves no real purpose. Vandalism is likely to quickly reach the same level once unprotected. So unless we want to make this an indefinete fully protected article (which is against policy for a case like this) until a few months after Bush leaves the White House, we won't really do much. Indeed full protection is rarely if ever necessary to deal with vandalism (except in cases where indefinite full protection is warranted). Nil Einne20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Templates
Just out of curiosity - how are you guys getting the templates to auto-hide themselves? I was searching through the code and it appears that they're just doing it randomly! --danielfolsom21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't edit it, so I thought I'd point this out. Currently the article still cites 28% to be his lowest approval rating, when in fact, it is no longer.
GWB=cheerleader
This category is misleading. Going out and doing a prank once in a cheerleader wig does not make you a cheerleader, any more than Rudolph Giuliani is a cross-dresser because he appeared in SNL in that outfit. He was not a career cheerleader, and I'm not convinced that saying he was so isn't intellectually dishonest, let alone a BLP problem. I tried to take it out twice, but someone keeps putting it back. The Evil Spartan15:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The context does make it seem like it was a childish prank, but in fact he was head cheerleader during his senior year at Andover Academy. I have added a reference for this fact. A look over at Category:American cheerleaders clearly shows that being a career cheerleader is not a prerequisite for inclusion in the category. Anyway, in my recent edits, I'm not trying to place any value judgement on whether he should be placed in the category, but one should think more carefully about the merits of removing him before doing so with a glib "I think not." Happy editing, Silly rabbit16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The truth hurts. But it's nothing to be ashamed of. Andover Academy was an all-boys school at the time. Here are pics of Bush as an Andover cheerleader: [1][2]FDR was a cheerleader at Harvard. Harvard had all male cheerleaders until the 70's. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a cheerleader at West Point. MrBlondNYC01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that someone should change his occupation from businessman to President of the United States because that is what his current occupation is. ((unsigned|68.221.20.157}}
Yes, I entirely agree with this. He is not currently a businessman by any standard meaning of that word. His job is "President of the United States." Perhaps this label should be changed to "Former Occupation" or the like. --RandomHumanoid(⇒)05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The infobox provides the field so that we can see what the president's main occupation was before (and perhaps after) taking office. The Evil Spartan16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purple Heart Controversy
Bush accepted a Purple Heart from veteran Bill Thomas. Thomas felt Bush deserved the purple heart do to the verbal assault he as had to take as President. Instead of respectfully refusing the pruple heart Bush accepted it. Because of this he has received criticism from several places. Does anybody know of a valid citable source for this fact?--Dr who197500:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree his decision to accept it was 'bizzare' to put it mildly. But seems to minor an issue for this article. Perhaps in a subarticle Nil Einne19:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
"Breaching" and "overflowing" or "topping" are different events
"Bush denied having received warnings about the possibility of floodwaters breaching the levees protecting New Orleans." This is true.
In the videoconference, whether the levees would be "topped" or not, was mentioned as a "grave concern". That means overflowing, with water spilling over the top of intact levees. "Breaching" means breaking of the levees. The record does not contradict Bush's denial.
I remember when the tape was leaked. It was completely unauthorized, and was a transparent attempt to show Bush being "caught in a lie". The specific controversy fizzled when the distinct definitions of the words were pointed out.
The inclusion of the episode in its current form in the article implies that the "caught in a lie" viewpoint is fact. That is pathetically biased, and should be revised to clarify the point, or be deleted entirely.
Are you saying that the New Orleans levees were breached, and Bush had only been warned they might be topped? The difference seems a bit subtle to me (you'd think the leader of the USA could infer the difference) - however, it may still be worth mentioning in the article. The Evil Spartan16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
honorific-suffix
I've noticed that many American leaders do not have their education included as post-nominals in their infobox; whereas other countries' leaders do (like how Stephen Harper has his MA degree at the top of his infobox). Are honorific suffixes not used in America? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah our politicians wouldn't want to look intelligent or anything. Generally we only display military rank in regards to politics, I wish I were joking. 69.201.134.147
It may be an MOS issue, but in general Americans don't include their degrees as honorifics unless they have a terminal degree (i.e. PhD, MD, etc.). --ElKevbo07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I don't think I've ever heard Bill Clinton along with his lawyer title (or any other president for that matter). At least not often. The Evil Spartan16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
George Bush jnr is correct
"Bush is sometimes referred to informally as George Bush Jr. in order to distinguish him from his father. However, because the son's full name is not exactly the same as his father's (the younger is George Walker Bush as opposed to the elder George Herbert Walker Bush), the "Jr." is incorrect."
It is correct in the vast majority of countries, as they do not use any middle names or initials to determine this, hence to call him George Bush Jnr would be correct.
So with no objections, I'm going to change it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billzilla (talk • contribs) 02:56, July 10, 2007 (UTC)
He's an American so we use American conventions. I also find the above assertion about the use of middle names "in the vast majority of countries" to be unfounded and presented without any evidence. I'd be okay with a small clarification making clear that this is applicable for American usage and conventions. --ElKevbo07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an international page, not just a US-only one. And I am not from the US and so am versed in non-US terms such as that. I'll edit it to show that it's a US-sepcific thing. Billzilla.
It's standard practice to use US terminology in US articles. Bush simply is not a Jr, as his name is not the same as his father's; he is not a Junior anywhere. You don't rename people when they step within the territory of another country. - auburnpilottalk13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well he's a junior everywhere outside the US, so the article is misleading and should be cleared up. Billzilla.
Perhaps. Though it would help if you could source it better. It's also, IMHO, a touch misleading to make the graph since 9-2001, as the president's ratings were artificially high due to the WTC attack - however, it would certainly be useful to add a graph since the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The Evil Spartan16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could add 2 more poll on the ABC graph but I would lose in data homogeneity("approve somewhat" and "disapprove somewhat" data are unavailable). You can look at the ABCNews link below.--Jean-Francois Landry05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barney has his own dedicated web page on the white house web space and is not mentioned in proportion to his importance to the Bush administration on this entry.
New Polls show a Plurality of Americans suport impieachment procedings against bush
[[3]] this data should be added to the article, just as significant a even larger majority suports the Impeachment of the VP.
Well, I can't see this video, but if it's Keith Obermann, then he's had an axe to grind with the president for a while, and we'll need much more reliable sources. The Evil Spartan16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses the, use "Prime Minister". If the sentence uses a, go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "The British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)
Therefore, when making reference to the specific office (i.e., using "president" as a proper noun, as in "The (pP)resident walked the dog today"), capitalization is proper while lack of capitalization is improper. The President walked the dog today is correct; The president walked the dog today is incorrect. The rule of thumb, as stated above, is definite vs indefinite article. Jpers3620:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, as we are not talking about a prime minister but a president in this article, the preceding section of the MoS is more relevant:
Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan."
Not having heard back, I went ahead and changed to MoS-compliant usage. Another issue I noticed is that we use the word an awful lot in this article. Many of the instances of "the president" should probably just read "Bush". I'll save that for another day though. --John01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to respond until now, because I headed home from work and I've been trying to get a new DSL line up and running since. I've posted a question on the MoS talk page about this. Jpers3603:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yale degree
Under the 'childhood to mid-life' section there is some misinformation about our presidents history. For example: Bush recieved a Bachlor of Art degree? That's a lie. The truth is that he recieved a Bachlor's degree in history. Read this and compare it to the current 'childhood to mid-life' section.
President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Following graduation, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father’s successful 1988 Presidential campaign, President Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998.
I've made the change and provided a reference. I'm not sure which is correct, but the White House biography simply identifies the degree as a Bachelor's degree, so that's how I've altered the wording. It was likely just an oversight. - auburnpilottalk00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the information given to you from the White House biography. It does specify what type of Bachlor's degree he recieved, which was a bachlor's in history. I also think that his Master's of Business Admenistration from Harvard Business School should be added. As well as the fact that he became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms, and include him working on his father's successful 1988 Presidential campaign.
The point about consecutive four-year terms is unimportant. As for the degree, I don't understand the foregoing discussion. There are Bachelor of Arts degrees and Bachelor of Sciences degrees, both called "bachelor's degree". To say that Bush got a B.A. doesn't mean he majored in Art. Anyone in the United States getting a bachelor's in History would, in my experience, have a B.A. JamesMLanetc05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consecutive four-year terms is important since it's something that should be included in his biography. The sentence, "Bush attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts where he played baseball, but made a more significant mark as an effective head cheerleader at the all-boys school during his senior year," is irrelevent and unsubstantiated. It is nothing more than another attempted jab at the president. Adding the part about his consecutive four-year terms, and the fact that it was the first time in Texas history that someone was elected for four consecutive terms is important.
The figure of 100,000 is not from the cited source, and is irrelevant anyway, since ther was NO national waiting list. The only relevant question is: How many others applied for the same slot as interceptor pilot in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard? Answer: None.
Gatr02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TIME
I just added an unreferenced comment about his absence from the 2006 influential people list on Time, but I am unable to access the article, not being a subscriber. Could a subscriber refrence it for me?
Vixwald20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Governor of Texas
Under the Governer of Texas section it should be added that President Bush became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998. It's an important part of his life (changing history and all) and should be included. --Lionheart6519:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHY, WHY this has NOT been discussed disturbs me
almost as much as the subject matter at hand.
FACT: President George W. Bush has appointed 2 Supreme
Court Justices. One of his appointments was for CHIEF Justice.
Last time I checked there are only 9 Justices on the bench.
His appointments have and will exert a great impact on the
face of this nation for decades to come. There should be
discussion on how the courts have been slanted heavily
toward conservatism. This discussion will highlight what
Bush's actions have on the fabric of this nation.
Furthermore, does the Supreme Court represent the will of
the people. In the event the courts pass judgment on society
that are perverse, then where does society turn to for answers ??
The energy of multiple issues will not vanish, because a
Conservative President has dictated societies will. Society will
respond, and possibly in a violent action.
I apologize for my liberal leanings, however I am a firm believer
in the rule of law. I think that Supreme Court Justices are
just as important as the myriad of issues cited for President Bush.
The actual facts of this person should remain in this article. As I was reading, I began to notice severe bias and complaints about the president. No matter what the political party, the Wikipedia is NOT a place to spew your rants and views. Its supposed to contain facts.
Noted directly from the POV link.
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are not many if none of those kinds of sources in this article. I recommend a complete check of this article. If you wish to rant about anything at all, it should all remain on the talk page, away from actual facts (eg. birth date of person)
-Nincb
--Marked Article POV Check--
Most of the bias can be found in the "Criticism and public perception" area.
Do you have any specifics? This article contains nearly 180 citations, the great majority of which are from mainstream news outlets (BBC, CNN, NBC, New York Times, etc.). I can't say I agree with your assertion that this article has few to no reliable sources. - auburnpilottalk18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this time I can not manually feed through hundreds of citations looking for matches of this discussed bias. This is something that everyone should look into.
Edit: In my personal opinion, some of these sources (Like the New York Times) tend to be biased in themselves, but that is up for discussion and not up to me.
-Nincb
Its not everyone else's job to search for the bias you accuse this article of having, its yours. If you can't be bothered to actually give any specifics, I'm going to remove that tag.--Mbc36218:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Low SAT and GPA true?
I found out from a source that George W. Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 verbal, 640 math) and that his cumulative undergraduate GPA at Yale was 2.35. Is this true? If someone this mediocre can get away with being president, nearly anyone can be president. --143.58.196.12010:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
President Bush's approval rating from April 2001 to June 2007. ABCNews Poll.
President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Newsweek Poll.
President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Gallup Poll.
c 21:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)