Talk:George W. Bush

Points to consider

That 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 it for their own good. The more hysterical 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 lose all credibility. If you criticize someone even when they do the right thing, you lose 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 every problem in the world on President Bush and so they did even though they knew better. You can usually tell those people because 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 wherein 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 everyone 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 heist 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 surprise 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.--Billiot 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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 cougat 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, here is but one news piece about it. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION_QA?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT The important section is as follows

"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 reviewed. 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 severe 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.--Billiot 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Katrina section, Michael Brown is referred to as being a 'horse trader,' but according to the articles "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Arabian_Horse_Association" his position with their organization is listed as Judges and Stewards Commissioner. The article about Brown describes his tenure in the IAHA involving investigations and disciplinary actions against at least one horse breeder, not participating in the sale of horses. It should be altered to read: "First, leaders from both parties attacked the president for having appointed incompetent leaders to positions of power at FEMA, most notably Michael D. Brown,[103] who was Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, (IAHA), from 1989-2001, before commanding FEMA." This gives an accurate description of Mr. Brown's position before joining FEMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 (talk) 21:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Daughter Jenna Bush's New Book

I think the President would be proud to mention this new book by daughter Jenna Bush - Ana's Story: A Journey of Hope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.77.150 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

2000 election

The section on the 2000 election that reads, "On election day, November 7, 2000 ... 537 votes out of 6 million cast, making it the 30th state he carried."

Suggest this be removed from George W Bush page and put on 2000 Presidential Election page and the Bush v Gore supreme court case page. The details are mind-numbingly long for what is supposed to be a biographical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granthursin (talk • contribs)

I removed it a little. The Evil Spartan 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty significant fact for the lead. I propose its reinclusion. --John 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it already mentions that he was part of a controversial election wher he won the electoral vote but not the popular vote. Keep in mind, this is a biography, not an article about his presidency. I would say it's worthy of inclusion, except the wikilink already links to the information and someone can look it up. The fact is, the article already reads too much like we're trying to cram 800000 bits of information into as few words as possible; I'd prefer leave it out. The Evil Spartan 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, it's extensively mentioned elsewhere in the article. The Evil Spartan 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there should be at least some mention in the lead section about the fact that Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, not elected through the regular election process. This is a pretty big distinction. TheUniverseHatesMe 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, we'd be happy to mention such a fact. However, Bush was not appointed by the Supreme Court and was in fact elected through the "regular election process". - auburnpilot talk 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The other day I changed it from "appointed" to "deemed to have won the presidency," and someone changed it back. Today I've changed it from "appointed president" to "became president," in an attempt to make it neutral and non-controversial. Even though I loathe Bush, it pays to be accurate.Tinmanic 15:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"War President" Reference

Around a year ago, an argument was made by myself (older account, The_Other_Other) for the non-NPOV of the "war president" reference. The proceeding discussion was a consensus that the reference did indeed violate NPOV guidelines. Since then, the entire discussion has been suspiciously deleted (it doesn't appear in the archives, anyway), and after a bit of back-and-forth (see here and here) without acknowledging the misrepresentation argument, the reference has been restored. So again, I will restate the case for its removal. Since this is clearly a controversial issue, I'll refrain from editing until a consensus emerges one way or the other.

The article currently reads as follows:

Running as a self-described "war president" in the midst of the Iraq War, Bush won re-election in 2004; his presidential campaign against Senator John Kerry was successful despite controversy over Bush's prosecution of the Iraq War and his handling of the economy.

The sighted reference for the "war president" quote is as follows (link):

[Bush:] I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.

My objections are as follows:

(1) "War president" is taken somewhat out of context from the original quote. Without clarification, "war president" heavily implies that Bush is, in whatever sense, pro-war. Bush clarified the self-description as "I make decisions . . . in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind." Bush's statement was along the lines of "Because a war is going on, I am constantly involved in issues concerning the war and it is constantly on my mind." This is very different from "I like war, and intend to get this country involved in it to an extent that is far greater than the norm", which is closer to the implied meaning of the quote as presented in the article.

(2) The quote was taken from an oral interview, not a written one, and later transcribed into a written document, without qualifying it as spoken dialog. This may not seem like a big deal, but it raises a couple notable issues. Firstly, written dialog varies significantly from oral dialog, partly because the social context is very different and also because responses are not thought out. Secondly, the oral-to-text transition inevitably and unconditionally removes all . It also opens the door to scribe bias (e.g., including "um"s while omitting subtle qualifiers like "no", "well", "actually", etc.), which is rather blatantly evident in the text version of the interview.

(3) The quote is non-NPOV, even if it fairly documents something Bush said, in that it doesn't represent Bush's general advocacy. It may be true that many people view Bush as a war president, but if you asked Bush if he considered himself a war president, I'm sure he would not hesitate to qualify his previous spontaneous statement. "Self-described" implies that Bush accepts and endorses the view that he is a "war president", which is far from accurate. "Bush once issued the oral statement 'I am a war president'" is fair and accurate; Bush describes himself as a 'war president' is not.

Again, I realize that the issue is controversial, so I suggest we wait for a consensus to form before making a (hopefully final) conclusion. Please do not treat it as the '08 election. ;-)

--XDanielx 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your memory of the discussion may not be entirely accurate. The only discussion User:The Other Other ever contributed to is the one you linked to above (see Special:Contributions/The Other Other) i.e. /Archive 52#"War President" restored. I did a quick look through the history and from what I can tell, the archived discussion that you participated in is is not missing any comments from other parties either. So I don't think any discussion was suspiciously deleted. The discussion you participated in, as you may now realise didn't have any real consensus or any real participation for that matter. (The second discussion you linked to /Archive 53#Opiner's removals is more extensive.) P.S. Of course there is the remote possibility that a rogue admin actually deleted something so it doesn't show up in the history, but that seems very unlikely to me Nil Einne 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken about "The_Other_Other" as the editor name. The comment you referenced under that name was separate from the one I was thinking of, which had its own section. I must not have been logged in at the time. Sorry for the confusion. --XDanielx 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember when the discussion took place? At least stuff like was it before or after the other_other? Nil Einne 12:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, so I'll just mention a few things. There are a lot of discussions about Bush as a war president and as a self-described war president and about the war president quote from NBC in particular (even in articles e.g. [1] & [2]). Even some editorials discuss how it was a key part of his campaign e.g. [3]. He also doesn't appear to have exactly given up on the idea of himself as a war president [4] either. All in all, saying he is a self-described war president is IMHO probably fair. It appears to be a part of his identity to him (and to others), whatever it means to him to be a 'war president' (which we don't and shouldn't comment on). Nil Einne 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the references you linked to provide any foundation for the "war president" self-description, apart from the same quote which is the subject of my objection. The first is premised exclusively on that quote. The second is premised on that quote and on the fact that Bush used the word "war" frequently, which obviously has nothing to do with an affirmation of war. The third provides no evidence for the self-description claim, and supports my re-interpretation by quoting things like "When you are a wartime president you have to make difficult decisions." The only "war president" mention in the fourth reference noted is "he never wanted to be 'a war president.'" Again, it supports my contention that Bush's "war president" mention was intended to describe the context of his presidency and the issues that he was pressured to engage in, not some kind of personal affirmation of war. You succeed in providing evidence that certain legitimate sources have interpreted the said quote as an affirmation of war, but the article doesn't just claim that certain sources have interpreted a quote from Bush as an affirmation of war (which would be perfectly fair); it claims that Bush describes himself as a war president, which is at best highly contentious (in my opinion, blatantly untruthful for the reasons given in my initial post) and hence violates NPOV. --XDanielx 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term "war president" is necessarily negative or positive or implies any affirmation for war nor do I think what's stated in the artice implies that. FDR was a war president but most didn't think of him as a war mongerer who preferred war. To complete the quote from the third reference: "President Bush is defining himself as a war president. It is endemic to everything he says and does and that's the overriding definitional tone," said Mike Frank, a government expert from the Heritage Foundation." Heritage is a conservative think tank and certainly is not using this term in a derogatory manner. If the argument is that Bush only personally said he's a "war president" in one interview and thus it may have been a mistake, wouldn't he or the White House have corrected or retracted it at some point?Gmb92 06:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "war president" doesn't have to be derogatory. It can be interpreted as a derogatory affirmation of war, or it can simply be taken to mean "president in a time of war". My (1) point is that from the context of his quote (as well as from common sense) it is evident that Bush intended the latter, whereas from the context of the article it is ambiguous at best. You conclude that Mike Frank shares this latter interpretation - I think that is perfectly reasonable, especially given the proceeding sentence ("When you are a wartime president you have to make difficult decisions."). But "Running as a self-described 'war president' in the midst of the Iraq War" implies the former interpretation, since the latter interpretation would render the statement redundant. Perhaps it doesn't have to be interpreted as such, but the fact that it can reasonably be interpreted in a way which doesn't reflect Bush's true advocacy and so makes the "self-described" claim untruthful should, in my opinion, be enough to remove it. --XDanielx

In any case, regardless of which interpretation is more heavily implied in the article, it only makes sense to replace it with something more appropriate to remove ambiguity. If you agree that Bush and his supporters do not describe themselves as war fanatics, then let's not let readers interpret the lead of the article that way. I think "in the midst of the Iraq War" already makes clear what we seem to agree on, that the issue of war is highly relevant to Bush's politics because of the context in which he is running. So I think the "self-described 'war president'" claim is superfluous and can be removed without any loss of factual content. Do you agree? --XDanielx 20:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would readers interpret it that way? "War president" is a neutral term, they are Bush's words and it was never retracted or clarified, which one would assume would be the case if it was a verbal slip. I'm not opposed to changing the wording. If we can reform that sentence to address your concerns without adding too much to the length, that's fine with me. I think that interview, though, was quite significant.Gmb92 06:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleaded guilty

Can someone please change the wording on the main page from "pleaded guilty" to "plead guilty"

Context - "He pleaded guilty, was fined $150, and had his driver's license suspended until 1978 in Maine."

Pleaded guilty is correctly English. Cheers Nil Einne 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. It may be good English, but it sounds just as awkward as the phrase "is correctly English" (which, on the other hand, is not) :P The Evil Spartan 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that "pleaded" is the most common form in BE as well as in AE generally, but in this specific phrase American media "almost always uses pled" [5]. This form (whether spelled with or without an a) may have been considered inferior in the past, but if it's true that American media almost always uses that form, then perhaps we should use it too, when writing in AE about American legal pleas? -- Jao 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, there are a considerable amount of such words, where the word falls out of usage in GB, and as such, it comes to be seen as "incorrect" by some of the language geeks (often, a lower class usage is considered incorrect in a language, while the upper class is kosher; the British bourgeoisie traditionally saw the Americans as lower class). See this article on the word loan for clarification. The Evil Spartan 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Pled or pleaded guilty sound fine to me. Plead guilty does not. But I can't speak for American English. If Pled guilty is preferred in American English then go for it. If plead guilty is preferred in American English then go for it too although that sounds wrong to me. Are you sure about the pled preference tho? While I don't particularly like Google searches since they tend to over-emphasise the importance of AE amongst other things (which obviously isn't an issue in this case), "pleaded guilty" gets more results and the first page are all American sources. Does it depend on context? E.g. someone pleaded guilty in a court case yesterday but pled guilty in this old court case? Nil Einne 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that but in my defence I was rather tired when I wrote that :-P Nil Einne 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it also possible to have the word Dickface removed from the first paragraph? It wrecks any neutrality the article is supposed to have. Jacinta.s 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have just left it. However, someone already decided to revert it as subtle vandalism ;) The Evil Spartan 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fascism, Authoritarianism

It seems unjustifiably omissive that not a single mention of fascism or authoritarianism is included in an article about a man large segments of America and the world consider its modern epitome. It's also a little peculiar that there's no summary under the criticism subheading, but just an immediate link to a separate page that itself contains no mention of fascism or authoritarianism. Is it our job to legitimize this man, or to post an unbiased NPOV article about him? Wercloud 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than what "large segments of America and the world consider its modern epitome" what is the evidence for this? I live in America and what George Bush has brought is low taxes and security, we still enjoy freedoms that most of the world doesn't so how is there at all any merit to the accusations you are making? --Southern Texas 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's please work to keep our personal politics to a minimum in this discussion. --ElKevbo 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo - this should be about neutral presentation of facts, not personal politics. Although specific cites will have to wait until tomorrow, I refer to the overwhelming global consensus that George W. Bush is a military aggressor and pervasive human rights abuser; and also the significant proportion of Americans who feel that his practice of torture, warrantless search and seizure, and routine secrecy in all aspects of government resemble at least the mentality and certain tactics of fascism and authoritarianism. Whether his supporters are in favor of those behaviors is obviously not germane to a discussion of the criticism subheading, either in the main article or extension page, but ignoring these pervasive criticisms would be an invalid omission. Wercloud 05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how you complain about soapboxing when you are the only one to soapbox on this topic Nil Einne 11:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite a few reliable sources supporting your assertions then it might be worth including a brief sentence in this article. Please keep in mind that this is a very busy article so we must be very judicious with what we choose to include or exclude. That is why there are so many separate articles like the criticism article you mentioned; we've had to move information into other articles to keep the length of this one manageable. --ElKevbo 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it's a very big article to maintain. For this page specifically, all I'm looking for is a summary under the criticism heading that refers specifically to these aspects, and then I'll move on to the criticism page itself. The best sources in general would be Hirsh's New Yorker articles, although I won't have much problem finding additional credible sources -- the documentation on this subject is ubiquitous, and I'll set about it tomorrow. Wercloud 05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is susposed to a neutral presentation of the facts, not an opinion peice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.162.98 (talk • contribs) 22:24, August 16, 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so if it's a fact that many people consider him a fascist or authoritary then we should present that Nil Einne 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of opinions without basis.--Southern Texas 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wercloud, please read up on our WP:NPOV policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to give their personal opinion. Would you support naming Hillary Clinton a communist? Probably not - which would show that this is a point of view, not a fact. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia page; for a blog, perhaps, but not for an encyclopedia. The Evil Spartan 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If reliable sources are provided that indicate Hillary Clinton being a communist is a common opinion then it should be mentioned in that article. However that should be discussed there not here Nil Einne 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying wikipedia is a collection of opinions without basis. However as ElKevbo has stated, if and when a number of reliable sources are found which support Werclouds assertations then it should be included as there is basis. Whether or not you agree with those opinions is irrelevant, all we would be saying is people have these opinions. This is not soapboxing. Werboat didn't come here and say that Bush is a fascist and authorian. All he or she said was that it's a common opinion which should be included in the article. However no reliable sources have been provided yet but this doesn't make it soapboxing. All that I said is that there's nothing intrinsincly wrong with included well sourced opinions of Bush, unlike 67 seems to think. Indeed you are the only one so far who has soapboxed on this thread since you are the only one who has offered personal opinions of Bush which is the epitome of soapboxing In any case, it seems pretty pointless to debate this further since no reliable sources have been presented as yet. This doesn't change the fact that if reliable sources are found it would have to be considered. Nil Einne 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I entirely disagree with you that it should be even included if there are reliable sources. I have seen way too much POV pushing and the like under the guise that "reliable sources" can be attributed to them. But Wikipedia has a duty to be neutral, even if there are "reliable sources" to the non-neutral statement. Just because a fringe group of people calls someone a bad name, it doesn't mean that it should be included in the article, even if there are sources for it. See Anti-Iranian sentiment for a great example of this concept gone amock. I'm sorry, WP:NPOV and WP:RS shouldn't be exclusive pillars. I will remove any mention I see of this from the article if I see it. The Evil Spartan 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Bush has received a fair amount of criticism for skirting the constitution (such as flagrant use of presidential signing statements, warrantless NSA wiretapping, and general withholding of information from the public, etc.) and has been accused of acting in an authoritarian manner (with different wording though) by constitutional scholars, etc. With proper sourcing and phrasing I believe it would acceptable to mention this. To actually claim he is fascist or authoritarian would obviously be POV, and I do believe that claiming large segments of America and the world consider Bush to be the modern epitome of fascism/authoritarianism is factually incorrect, very minor segments of the world consider him to actually be fascist/authoritarian.--Rise Above the Vile 20:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god… I think I can put this whole argument to rest right now. Finding a “reliable source” would entail finding information from a source that is qualified to make the statement “Bush is a fascist” or “Bush is a totalitarian”. An editorial or an opinion poll does not meet this criterion. Editorials and opinion polls are opinions, not facts and they don’t belong here. I don’t care how big and “reliable” the source is be it the New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ect. The only thing you will find in any of those sources is opinions from writers and opinion polls. Opinions don’t belong in Wikipedia, it’s an encyclopedia. Can you think of any source that would unequivocally show that Bush is in fact a fascist? I can’t even think of a place to find that kind of info let alone a source that would be qualified to make that statement. Opinions from world leaders of nations who are at odds with the U.S. don’t count either. They’re obviously going to be biased and have a conflict of interest. The simple fact of the matter is that in a little more time Bush won’t be in office anymore, we’ll have a new president and this whole thing will start over again with someone new. I don’t see how you call someone a fascist and totalitarian when they haven’t been in office long enough to prove that. Presidents can only serve two terms of four year. I think the entire discussion is kind of silly when someone is only able to hold power for such a little amount of time. Now, if Bush does something insane like refuse to leave office at the end of his last term then I think he would meet the definitions of the words that so many people throw around without knowing there true power and meaning. The entire argument above is nothing more then soap boxing and POV pushing from both sides. It’s all entirely silly. I know it’s hard to separate personal opinions and passions from one’s editing on Wikipedia. God knows there has been plenty of times when I’ve just wanted to go over to the Hugo Chavez article and replace the entire thing with profanity and a picture of a giant douche but that’s not what the point of this whole Wikipedia thing is. I think we can all agree that we just need to all calm down, drop this argument, and all try to make sure we leave our personal feelings and passions at the door when we put on our Wiki hats. Thanks! Elhector 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash. One could likely find reliable sources that "many people hold the opinion that..." or similar sentiments. You've either misunderstood or are mischaracterizing the discussion. --ElKevbo 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash? "One could likely find reliable sources that "many people hold the opinion that... or similar sentiments." See the word "opinion" in the line I just quoted from you? Opinions don't belong here. Opinion polls are not reliable and very fluid so they don't belong and wouldn't work as a source. Some writer's opinion from some newspaper belong here either. I guarantee you if you find a source that purports to show that many people hold the opinion that Bush is a fascist I could find just as reliable of a source that says the complete opposite. You know why? Opinion polls are not reliable sources of info. Anybody can make a poll have any result they want with careful wording of the questions, the demographic they choose to poll, and the size of the poll. I'm pretty sure you're aware that polls are manipulated to meet the needs of the person that requested the poll. Statistics like that are just silly. Give me enough time and I can use polls and statistics to "prove" that global warming is caused by the decline in pirates sailing the seas. That's precisely why the type of info you you claim belongs here doesn't. Elhector 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect you'll be removing the polling data from this article and all other opinions, even those held by "some writer[s]...from some newspaper", right? Please don't confuse "documenting a notable opinion" with "advocating a position". --

ElKevbo 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to polling data is dead on. If someone could provide poll results from a credible source (gallup) that indicated that the majority of Americans or the world at large considers Bush to be a facist it would be relevant. Unless there is statistically significant data to support such a statement it is nothing but posturing and soapboxing. Also, on a personal note, as an emigree from Soviet Russia despite the fact that I do not like President Bush, I am personally disgusted to even hear someone consider him as a modern epitome of Facism. Please set your prejudices aside and deal with facts. And go read about some of my former countrymen.

On a related note, would it be relevant to include mention of Bush signing into law an executive order outlawing protest against war in Iraq? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29 and http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.70.7 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the entire executive order and I don't see anything in there about outlawing protests against the war. Can you cite the part of the order that you think outlaws protests? It looks like the order was signed in July but I just drove past a large group of war protesters in my area yesterday and they weren't being arrested or anything. As a matter of fact the police were there making sure they had a safe place to protest and that they weren't harrased by anybody who didn't appreciate the protest. If this order bans Iraq war protests shouldn't these people have been rounded up by the black vans and black helicopters? Elhector 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously the executive order prohibits the material support, not vocal support, of the insurrectionists in Iraq. Freedom of Speech is unaffected. Providing aid, succor or monetary support to the insurrectionists could result in a hold on your assetts. Please check facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.203.117 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Zero-paragraph sections

Per WP:SUMMARY and the Manual of Style, the "Cabinet appointments" and "Domestic policy" sections need at least two sentences of text. Currently they just have see-main links. ←Ben^B4 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine Use or allegations of use

Proposing a reference to GWB's possible use of cocaine, or at least a topic on the accusations of such?

see: Hatfield's 'Fortunate Son'[[6]]

If there is an inclusion of Bill Clinton's 'I didn't inhale' on his page, shouldn't this topic be covered for Bush as well? 24.5.74.180 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were reliable, a number of major publications such as the WaPo, NY Times, AP and Reuters would have covered it as a major news story. 'Fortunate Son' alone would be more of a red flag, than a reliable source. For comparison, Clinton's inhaling or lack there of received much media attention and is reliably sourced through many mainstream publications.--Tbeatty 07:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do remember this being mentioned in the media a good bit. However, the sources were not good, and GWB denied it, thus giving a possible WP:BLP issue. I'm not sure, given the amount of media attention, compared to the attention about the inhaled comment, that it's worth inclusion. But that's just my opinion. The Evil Spartan 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Plurality

Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 as a result of the Florida outcome. However, he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes[48] making him the first president elected without at least a plurality of the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison in 1888.[49][50]

What about the 1992 and 1996 elections? Bill Clinton did not receive a plurality of the vote either time. He had the most votes out of the three main candidates, but received less than 50% of the popular vote both times. 69.149.39.142 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing plurality with majority - plurality simply means they got more votes than any other candidate, not that they had at least 50% of the vote.--Rise Above the Vile 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Another nuclear baguette

Would someone kindly remove the line "Among presidential scholars, he is considered one of the worst U.S. presidents to hold the office" from the intro. It may well be true in the future, but seeing as his term isn't even over, it's mildly POV. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.175.36 (talk) 10:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear me. How did that sneak in there? The Evil Spartan 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism (AKA: The Devil)

The latest round of vandalism to this article seems particularly difficult to undo. Immediately after President Bush's full name (the first words of the article) and before his birthdate is written (a.k.a. The Devil) I have been unable to revert it like the otehr articles, and even trying to delete the portion manually is unsuccessful, as the vandalism does not show on the edit page. But I've refreshed with different browsers, and the slight against him is visible. Is this due to the protected status, or just a clever method of vandalism? Yookaloco 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I was still seeing it as well, but purged the page's cache and it appears to have vanished. - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Domestic perceptions opening?

"At the beginning of his first term, Bush was regarded by some as lacking legitimacy due to his narrow victory in Florida and the attendant controversy surrounding his overall victory, which included accusations of vote suppression and tampering." Isn't this by definition weasel-wording, and therefore, inappropriate? CBoz 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If the sentence had served as a general introduction and summary of the section and was followed by more detailed discussion with citations then it wouldn't bother me. But I don't see those topics discussed in that section or those claims substantiated. I've removed the sentence. If I've done so in error (perhaps the citations and such are there but I missed them), please revert and discuss! --ElKevbo 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bush: Job Ratings

Since the article makes note of the president's approval rating in the opening segment, shouldn't it be kept up to date instead of referring to a single polling that is more than a month old? A site like this: "http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm" keeps track of the more recent polls tracking the president's approval and disapproval ratings, so shouldn't the article be updated to reflect the most recent data available? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 (talk) 21:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The approval ratings listed in the lead are describing the highs and lows of his presidency - not what they are currently at; I've tried to make it more clear. His current approval rating is listed under domestic perceptions; I've gone ahead and updated it. I also made the change to Michael D. Brown's description in the Katrina section that you suggested. --Rise Above the Vile 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Too postive

I think there needs to be more crticism here. And how about a section on 'Bushisms' and what a bad public speaker he is. Xavier cougat 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

On the contrary maybe we should look into the neutrality of this article should be looked into however I agree that a critical article is a bad idea. 71.112.2.145 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have anything specific, please do relate. But "this article doesn't bash Bush enough" isn't going to fly very far when we have an encyclopedia that's dedicated to neutrality. The Evil Spartan16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! And I'm sure Bush is a nice man, too!

Worst President Stencil Image in the Foriegn Perceptions Section

ElKevbo has placed an image in the foriegn perceptions section. It's basically a stencil with an image of Bush and it says "worst president" on it. In an effort to prevent an edit war I'm trying to start a discussion here concerning it since it's been removed and re-added a few times now. My personal opinion is that this image does not belong here. It's in the foriegn perception section yet the text in the image is in english and I'm fairly sure I've only seen this image on t-shirts here in the United States, so i highly doubt it's a foriegn image. Personally I think this image would belong in the Bush Controversy page or the Bush Criticism page (i believe both those pages exist) Anyways, let's discuss this before an edit war starts. Elhector 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I really understand the objection to the image as there are no other images in that section at all and the image is free, high quality, and illustrative of the topic at hand. That it is in English is not indication of its origin; in fact, it was created and uploaded by an Australian editor. It does not push or advocate for a position (i.e. violate NPOV) but it is a great illustration of the topic being discussed in that section.

In short, I'm not sure that the push to remove the image is anything more than "I don't like it (for no apparent reason)" with which I counter "I like it because..." In short, the image adds to this encyclopedia article and nicely illustrates the topic at hand. --ElKevbo 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the image itself that I don't like, it's the fact that it's kind of just floating there in that section without any explanation. Maybe if someone could add a small blurb in the article section about where the image came from and also explain that it is an example of the anti-Bush sentiments in the particular part of the world that image is from I might be a little more inclined to be in favor of the image staying there. Without any explanation or reference to the image in the article it just comes off as a little point of view pushing. I'm not actually accusing the person who posted the image of POV pushing, I'm just saying it's very easy for it to be perceived that way and it's just asking for trouble. This article already get's very heated and without any sort of explanation for the image I can see a whole can of worms being opened here. Elhector 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that adding some context would be a great idea! I've asked the editor who uploaded the image to drop by and offer some context so hopefully that will clear things up. --ElKevbo 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I seem to be in the wrong encyclopedia, two users actually resolving a dispute in a calm and constructive manner! Shock! Ban them now, ect. Anyway, I created the stencil of this image, not, the image itself, but I modified it slightly. The image is stenciled on some particle board in an art College in Canberra, the national capital of Australia. Any thing else, I'd be happy to tell you. Cheers, ElDefrag 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone's just messed up the page, you might wanna fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.167.43 (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edit - Some vs. Many

Overall this is really actually pretty darn good, this is the first time I've read it. I did note one error, in the Domestic perceptions section, there is a line:

"Many Republicans began criticizing Bush on his policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Territories.[162]"

The USA Today article referenced only lists two Republican representatives, and uses the term "some" rather than "many" in describing the opposition. Possibly that should be updated here, or more references to additional representative comments should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmathies (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed it to "some republican leaders," thanks for the input!--Rise Above The Vile 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Walkout against George W. Bush

There is an Australian student strike campaign known as "Walkout against George W. Bush" (WAG) going on to protest about George Bush coming to Australia for the Asia Pacific forum on Economic Cooperation. I think this should be added to the article under the Criticism section. Do you agree? --AAA! (AAAA) 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing new, or particularly notable. We might as well just say "most hated person on the planet" and sum it up with the one sentence --lucid 07:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. There have been more protests against George Bush than I could count on both hands and feet several times over. Seems to be a pasttime among some people. The Evil Spartan 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

policy areas

I have just read the article and in general it seems to be quite good.

I did feel that in a few areas it was too brief and there were some notable omissions:

1) The fact that Bush filled two vacancies on the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito) is quite an important event in his presidency and should probably be at least mentioned somewhere in the article.

2) It also seems to me that general re-assertion of the authority of the executive branch vs the legislative and the judicial branches is an important theme of the entire Bush presidency, where he appears likely to have a substantial lasting impact. So perhaps something could be mentioned about that? Maybe also a few words about relations with Congress?

3) In the Immigration section there is currently no mention of the fact that a comprehensive immigration reform bill was actually prepared with the Bush administration's help, that it was introduced in the Senate, that Bush actively supported it, and that the bill died in the Senate on a cloture motion. Similar info is rightly provided in the Social Security section of the article. Arguably, the immigration reform bill constituted a more notable event because of the public reaction and debate it generated, because it had an actual chance of passing, and because it appears to have greater political consequences.

Info added to the article on Sept 9, 2001. Nsk92 07:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Nsk92 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I have already agreed with several other people on this point. The Supreme Court is probably the most fought over territory in the land. It ought to be in - and it could even be mentioned that it was widely considered a tilt of the court in a more conservative direction (though we have to be careful - Alito is more conservative than O'Connor, but not Roberts than his predecessor).

2) Agreed again. But this will certainly need to be sourced, and not with op-ed pieces either.

3) Already in the article: In May-June 2007 Bush strongly supported the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 which was written by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators with the active participation of the Bush administration.... The bill was finally defeated in the Senate on June 28, 2007, when a cloture motion failed on a 46-53 vote, whereas 60 positive votes were needed for the motion to pass. [98]. Bush was very disappointed in the bill's failure.... This has all the information that you've mentioned. The Evil Spartan 21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who added this info to the page (look-up the page history) after I posted my comments here. Regards, Nsk92 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia?

A Question

I have read that President Bush suffers from Dyslexia. (I apologise if this has been brought up before). Is this True? Incorrect? Or a Stupid Joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.132.21 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope - it appears it was an unsubstantiated rumor started by a magazine. 64.178.102.151 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

President George W. Bush is not a representative of Christian faith and his religious affiliation should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.22.40 (talk • contribs)

I thought he was part of the jewish faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.132.137 (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this kind of information is relevant to his biography. No one claims he represents Christianity: but his own beliefs are relevant. The Evil Spartan 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In what way is his belief relevant to governing the United States of America? I would certainly hope you're implying the U.S. has become a form of theocracy, which is a dangerous form of government in the begin with (remember who was in charge during the dark ages?)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.22.40 (talk • contribs)

First off, please sign your posts. Second off, this has nothing to do with the US government, unless you're implying that everyone in government has to be an atheist. Looks, this discussion is turning into trolling unless you have a valid suggestion to make. The Evil Spartan 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that religious affiliation is an important part of a person's biography/encyclopedia entry. If this article were titled Bush's Presidential policy you might have a valid argument to remove it, but on the other hand I would argue that there should be an entire section on how his faith has influenced political decisions. Jaredbelch 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a section on his religious beliefs. It's a pretty important subject. Atheists and non-Christians make jokes about him and his faith and generally use him as an excuse to mock Christianity. Meanwhile, many Christians consider him to be a "good Christian leader" and their choice to vote for him was likely highly influenced by this. Finally, there is a growing segment of Christianity which considers him to be evil, satanic[7], and some have even called him the anti-Christ.[8] --RucasHost 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jaredbelch 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A personal biography that omits a person's stated religous beliefs, when that person is a public figure who makes a great deal out of his Christianity, is seriously deficient. Your are correct this is not a theocracy, it is a state with religious freedom. Please be careful that we do not confuse seperation of church and state, with complete suppression of church. A man is entitled to his religious views, and is even entitled to attempt to get policy passed based on his views. If you wish me to site relevant SC cases on seperation of church and state I will and, oh never mind I'll stop being polite. Your statement about this not being a Theocracy offends me greatly as it demonstrates an intolerance of and a bigotry towards religion. No matter whether the man is President or a garbage man he is entitled to his religious beliefs and those beliefs are relevant in a biography of him.

 Thank You----BorisB

Well said Boris. The idea that the United States is "becomming a theocracy" is absurd. --RucasHost 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the "Religious beliefs" section. I hope you will all work with me to imporve it. --RucasHost 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

...he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard...

not

...he was discharged for the Texas Air National Guard...

Perhaps Bush has been editing his own article? We shouldn't misunderestimate his ability with technology, after all he has mastered the Google. --RucasHost 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

State flags

I am removing these flags from the infobox. If anyone can come up with an encyclopedic reason to restore them, here would be the place to do it. --John 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Au revoir. The flags are completely unnecessary and clog up the page. The Evil Spartan 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

His approval rating, nevertheless, remains higher than that of the Democrat-controlled Congress.

This is the last sentence at the end of the fourth paragraph. Am I the only one who thinks this is a non-sequitur? MessedRocker (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviwing the articles on the last 2 presidents... it does appear very out of place. If we are going to list the approval ratings of congress(which I don't see as necessary in the first place) we should also list the prior republican controled congress. They were voted out so I'd have to check to see how truly bad their ratings were. The thought behind the edit was general disatisfication of the goverment, if so we should include the Katrina disaster, and the loss of many of the higher level members of the justice department, the war protests, the morgage crash, the management of the Iraq war and other factors. Just focusing on the congress appears to be out of place as ultimatly they are not the under the direct control of Bush. RTRimmel 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The approval ratings of congress are from before the 2004 election - when the congress was republican controlled. That is why the republicans were voted out, and the democrats gained control of congress. The sentence reads like it's the democratic congressmen that the public disapproved of, when, in fact, their opinions of congress were formed when republicans were in control. Thus, the sentence is misleading, at best. In addition to be a non-sequitur, out of place, and the other things mentioned. Kevin Baas^talk 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote remove the sentence , it doesn't add anything and only creates confusion. As we have 3 opinions to that effect, I'll remove it and we can discuss a less confusing replacement sentence later. 76.181.100.218 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not change this anymore, since I agree that this article is on George W. Bush and not on the 110th U.S. Congress. However, I do want to make it clear that the record low 11% approval rating was taken very recently and is for the Democrat-controlled Congress, not the Republican-controlled one. To me, it seemed as if Bush's low approval rating mention seemed very biased and I thought that mentioning the Congress' also-low approval rating would put things into perspective. But alas, there's also mention of Bush's recored high 90% approval rating as well, which seems to balance things out. Abog 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing your source... its much lower than every other poll I could find from the same period(Bush's ratings were low too so take heart). Gallup has them trending down, but Congressional approval was not been over 30% for the entire year of 2006. To be certain, approval is low but this article isn't the place for that discussion. RTRimmel 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jr.

Why is the photograph captioned "George W. Bush Jr" when the article itself says "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"? Be consistent! MacAuslan 08:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! I removed it. --ElKevbo 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. MacAuslan 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Necessary?

In the opening preamble section there's a bit about Bush's approval ratings. It sights the historic highs and lows he has managed to achieve, going on to say he's reached lower approval ratings than any president for 35 years. Well and thorough, but is it necessary once these points are made to have to say "Only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon scored lower.[10]"? Seems a bit overboard in the opening paragraphs of a biography. Thanks. 125.174.223.253 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He is known for, among other things, being a highly unpopular president and some context is necessary. He also had one of the highest approval rating did beat out the previous president, though Clinton did end his term with a 65% approval rating and maintained a decent approval rating through most of his term. I think its valid simply because it is way off of a 'typical' president, Reagan and Ford's articles do not mention their approval ratings which were both close to 50% most of the time, but when 7 of of 10 people think you are doing a bad job it requires some scrutiny. As for listing references, I prefer the actual names rather than "Only two other presidents in since WW2 have had lower approval ratings." The current sentence is shorter and more informative. Finally, the fact that a president with such a low approval rating yet somehow remains effective through legislative tactics remains impressive. Even with this rating George Bush is a very effective president in so far as he is able to push his agenda through the office of president, even if you happen to personally disagree with his agenda and how he is doing it, regardless of my personal opinion. RTRimmel 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This one could go either way. It's quite important to his biography that he's been both a popular and equally unpopular president, but the last sentence does seem to be just a tad gratuitous. Like I said, it could go either way. If someone wants to remove it, I won't object. The Evil Spartan 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I don't think its going to matter. With his current planned vetos its very possible that his rating is going to drop even lower than it presently is. The source mentions that only those presidents ranked lower so I'm inclined to leave it in for context (there are worse presidents) but its possible that he's going to drop even lower. I'd probably reword the sentence to include them, but I'm unsure that it matters long term. RTRimmel 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence from the lead for two reasons. First off, as has already been pointed out, context for Bush's low approval ratings has already been made, the additional sentence adds little and frankly does not belong in the lead. Additionally, since opinion polling has only been done reliably since around World War II, this comparison can only be made between the last 12 or so presidents and therefore, in reality, is not very informative.--Rise Above The Vile 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Katrina Vacation

There is really no reason for the extended working vaction bit during the Katrina Section.

Katrina

Regarding Katrina, I was wondering if anyone planned on adding the exchanges between George W. Bush and the authorities of Louisiana before the hurricane hit? That Bush urged evacuations, but the that the advice was ignored? 74.138.95.115 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)New&naive

Do you have any sources for this? If you do, that information may be useful for this article.--Rise Above The Vile 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do have to agree with the above fellow IP (I can't find a source, but I do believe that the head of one of the major organizations (FEMA?) did call Negan and plead for a mandatory evacuation). I read the section, and it's not too bad, except that if it's going to include the comments from critics, it should probably briefly mention anything that Bush-backers have said. There's also this sentence: ...leaders from both parties attacked the president for having appointed incompetent leaders to positions of power at FEMA,. It should not come right out and state that Michael Brown was incompetant (allegedly would suffice much better), and the statement "from both parties" could probably be reworded to just "leaders", as the vast majority of the criticism was from Democrats. 71.58.97.225 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But the info still needs a cite. Happyme22 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yale Shmale Addition.

n August of 2006, Lakehead University of Thunder Bay launched an international advertising campaign dubbed "Yale Shmale," that features a goofy image of Bush with the title'Yale University, Class of 1968'. The "Yale Shmale" advertising campaign pokes fun at U.S. President George W. Bush and his Ivy League alma mater. The poster reads, "“Graduating from an Ivy League university doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smart,” Phase 2 of the awareness campaign replaced the headline “Yale Shmale” and its image of the U.S. President with the message: “Be Smart. Choose a university that’s right for you.”

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with the article?--Rise Above The Vile 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rise is completly correct. Please lay off the Bush-bashing. Happyme22 05:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me this is a truth, merely stating facts. The 'bashing' was exactly the intent of the ads, would you not agree ?

I feel sorry for Bush, and for North America, that's not the issue here.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

I have entered the following several times only to have it deleted:

Bush has repeatedly warned the world about terrorism - “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

“If anybody harbours terrorists they’re a terrorist; if they fund a terrorist they’re a terrorist; if they house terrorists they’re terrorists – I mean I can’t make it any more clearly (sic)."

NB - Wiki entries show us that terrorists, e.g. [Luis Posada Carriles][9] and [Orlando Bosch][10] are currently being harbored by the USA.

Why is this entry being deleted? and by whom? when it is so telling about this man?

If you assist a terrorisr and you're considered a terrorist then shouldn't Bush be considered a terrorist? How about his father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.149.229 (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

War Criminal

Can bush be tried as a war criminal? This article should include that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.242.133 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If he were officially tried as a war criminal, then yes, it would merit inclusion. But just because fringe elements of certain activist groups suggest that he should be does not mean that it warrants inclusion in this article. See WP:REDFLAG, WP:LIBEL, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and/or WP:UNDUE ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Friendly question about the lead

When the lead says that his handling of the economy is controversial (I know the lead isn't the place to get into specifics), but what does this refer to? I mean, unemployment is at 4 year lows, economy has grown 20% since 2001, wages are starting to go up...I mean, what am I missing? What are the alleged misdeeds to the economy? Thanks so much, Judgesurreal777 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, without getting into the merits of the bush economy (and I largely agree with you), what really matters is whether the sources cited support the claim. The sources cited for that are the exit polls and the presidential debate. The exit polls note that there's a 49-51 split against Bush's handling of the economy, and the Presidential debate...well I don't know what you can make of that. In any case, neither really said anything about any controversy (there might be a near 50-50 split in mustard brand preference among Americans, that doesn't mean there's controversy). The sources cited seem to be the very definition of Primary sources, and hence are Original research, and hence verboten on Wikipedia. I've changed the marginally less-bad "domestic issues," only because just leaving it about the war would be even more misleading. I'm sure others will disagree with my change. --Ybbor^Talk 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many factors, I think that the fact that he has run up more debt than every other president combined and that many of his economic policies bluntly favor the wealthy as opposed to the whole of the country cause most of the concern of how his economic policy works. We've had to raise the debt ceiling 2(3?) times since Bush has been in office and there was a pretty big gap in the amount of debt owed vs that ceiling when Clinton left(note, Clinton was not in a war or dealing with a recession so that's not all that special, but reasonably noteworthy that a democrat used that money responsiably instead of on more social programs). The dollar is also at a historic low and the cost of gas is near record high, oil is $80 a barrel which is approaching 70's oil range adjusted for inflation. Unemployment is low, but the average median income has dropped for lower and middle class people while growing significantly for the wealthy. The disparity of income is at record levels, highest ever recorded actually. (During the Clinton years they were amoung the lowest ever recorded so this shift has happened recently). Many of the unemployed have moved from higher paying jobs to lower paying jobs. The economy is transitioning, how much influence Bush wields here is questionable, but he is the president. RTRimmel —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs section

I've removed this section added by RucasHost (talk · contribs) for failing WP:NPOV and WP:OR. In addition, it appears to be original research, claiming the hand gesture is the sign of Satan. Links such as http://www.bushisantichrist.com are in no way reliable, and cannot be used. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Does a biography of a living person need criticism that he doesn't have enough faith in a god? Randydeluxe 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and I've removed some of the section, leaving what little could be argued as a reliable source. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite clear: "poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion". - auburnpilot talk 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the section AuburnPilot removed was POV and OR, Bush's religious beliefs are arguably relevant. Religion and religious groups have been enormously meaningful in recent American politics. This section could be written differently. - Che Nuevara 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no OR, I provided numerous references. Your removal of the well-referenced section is vandalism. --RucasHost 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The section was not neutral by any stretch of the imagination and used far from reliable sources. As far as it being vandalism, I suspect you know it wasn't vandalism or you would have reverted again. No good faith edit is vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Rucas, please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Well-intentioned edits are not vandalism, whether they are appropriate or misled. (I happen to agree with AuburnPilot on this, but that does not change the meaning of WP:VANDAL.) I've had a bit of prior contact with AuburnPilot, and I assure you he is quite the upstanding Wikipedian. - Che Nuevara 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, CheNuevara, and I agree that a religion section could have a place in this article. It will need to be referenced, however, with main stream reliable sources. When sourcing a high profile biography such as this one, it us usually best to stick with news outlets, journals, standard publications, and trusted websites. Websites such as bushisantichrist.com, savethemales.ca, and bushrevealed.com don't pass the test. - auburnpilot talk 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct on this point. I will try to see if I can dig something up. - Che Nuevara 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a ref from biography.com on Bush's conversion to Methodism (from Episcopalianism) and his ensuing increased religious convictions. For his apparent "lapse" later on, I will keep my eye out. - Che Nuevara 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Here's another potentially useful link. - Che 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Hopefully we can get something written out... - auburnpilot talk 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the Department of Justice

I was just reading about the Don Siegelman case and glanced through here and we do not mention the DOJ at all during the article. Given the massive amount of contraversy surrounding the midterm firing of Prosecutors and the widespread accusations of partisan biases, it needs to be in here. I'll type something up later today, but my questions is why isn't it here already? RTRimmel 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources:

• [[11]] RTRimmel 15:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the DOJ matter is covered in the following article this one references - Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Anastrophe 16:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that we discuss Katrina and Bush's first veto here, I believe Bush's handling of the DOJ should be mentioned. I'll write something up when I get home later tonight, if only to provide context and throw them to that link. RTRimmel 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding a summary of the controversy to the appropriate section within this article, along with a {{main}} link to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I don't, however, find the Siegelman controversy relevant to Bush. As far as I know, nobody has suggested Bush was personally involved in that case. - auburnpilot talk 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But Rove was and it is a very good example of the political manipulation of the Justice Department. That said after the nice copy edit, I do think that the section is a good addition to the article overall. I'm now reviewing Bush's stance on terror to see if it is a worthwhile add. RTRimmel 03:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"But Rove was [...]". i'm confused. this article is george bush, not karl rove. wikipedia isn't for providing "good example(s) of the political manipulation of the Justice Department". it's for providing verifiable information about the subject of the article. if you can provide verifiable citations of bush's direct involvement in the DOJ firings, by all means add it. speculation about his role, or the role of others in the presidents administration, don't belong in this article. Anastrophe 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i've trimmed the section to only those points particularly relevant to this article. the remaining details are appropriately and fully covered in the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article. Anastrophe 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

what's with the picture? i mean, i don't like bush, but that looks like vandalism which i can't revert since it's protected. - 89.136.168.239 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

the picture was just changed and i would like to thank the person/bot who did it. if you have a problem with bush, leave the US.