Jump to content

Talk:George W. Bush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SP4 (talk | contribs) at 21:39, 16 July 2008 (→The feel of this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleGeorge W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 24, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:FAOLTemplate:Maintained

Offshore Drilling

Bush is to ask Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/06/17/2008-06-17T235201Z_01_N17395073_RTRIDST_0_BUSH-ENERGY-UPDATE-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8"Jobby (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be added to the Environmental policy sub section? 8"Jobby (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to how they are going to spin this as current estimates indicate that 25 billion barrels of oil are available in the 'limited' areas that are allowed for drilling and less than 17% of them are being used? If only 17% of the current area, the easiest to access and the cheapest to drill from(in most cases), is being used why will opening up more decrease cost? Alternatively, why don't they use the 44 million of open acres in the already authorized drilling land in the continental US? Historically land based oil is always less expensive than off shore oil anyway. The only reason that I see it as a valid environmental concern is that A: We already have millions of acres available for drilling that are not being used and B: The areas where they want to drill will impact fishing/tourism/in shipping lanes and other economic areas meaning that it will cost jobs while unused oil fields are sitting off in more economic areas to drill anyway? It sounds like a load of BS to me, but hey with $4.00 gas I suppose its a point. RTRimmel (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/134047/614/81/537906

It should be added, but perhaps it should be added under the economic section, not the the environmental section. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that 8"Jobby (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC) And to attempt to answer your point Rimmel; Land drilling - that ship has sailed and there is no way it could happen. Although slight, the chance of offshore drilling happening is better. Thing is, it'll take at least 10 years before that oil is at the pump. Hopefully we'll be coming off fossil fuel by then.....[reply]

This whole thing is significant though, as it's Bush's last play so to speak. He doesn't have much (or any!) political capital left, so this is just another attempt to make crony oil buddies happy before he goes back into the private sector. 8"Jobby (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the Daily Kos to be a reliable source. A strongly politically or ideologically based website is not a good place to find objective facts. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Daily Kos" is indeed not a reliable source but the fact that "...oil companies already have under lease 68 million acres on federal lands and waters _ outside the ban area _ that are not being developed." [1] is well reported and more research needs to be done before including this issue in this and McCain's article. --Floridianed (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Poll replacement

I noticed some recent edits giving Bush as 23% approval rating as opposed to the 28% we had up there. The Gallup poll is the gold standard for polls and the 28% Gallup gives him the worst approval rating (and highest disapproval rating) of any President in US history. The existing high point is also a Gallup number and the highest approval rating in history. Putting in another poll at this point is kind of redundant unless its another Gallup one. We can always use the ARG 19% approval rating if we just want to make Bush look bad, but we are officially kicking a dead horse here. Worst ever is worst ever, going lower is well... blah at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the Bloomburg poll you'll have to change the preceding sentence which correctly states Bush's highest and lowers approval ratings of any US President. At this point, we understand he is hideously unpopular (again most unpopular President in US history) and anything more than this is beating a dead horse. RTRimmel (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The feel of this article

Look. I know that alot of people don't like President Bush, but this needs to be written in an objective tone. Therefore, I am asking if we could put the {{POV}} tag on.csieb2011 —Preceding comment was added at 03:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slapping a sticker on the top of the article doesn't actually accomplish anything, and pointing out where specifically you see problems with the neutrality of the article would be much more productive. If you'll do that, we will be able to address those problems. - auburnpilot talk 04:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was written quite objectively and I have often been on the opposite side of heavy criticisms of George W. Bush. I was actually quite surprised after reading the article for its objectivity. Good job guys. - Randalllin (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. Although I was amused to see the exact date and time that Bush's presidency ends prominently featured at the top of the page. Maybe there should be a countdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.251.232 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than adding the POV tag, specify what you feel is causing the article to violate the NPOV policy. SMP0328. (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article has done well in terms of objectivity, due to the vocal support and opposition that Bush faces. It may seem overly criticizing, but the fact of the matter is, there is a significant amount to criticize. It is factually supported by President Bush's approval rating that he does not have a particularly favorable reputation. I don't want to get into any arguments; the world doesn't need any more arguments; I just want to say that given the body of facts, it is hard to write an article that is completely even in terms of criticism and praise. Kodmkl (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need of a "POV-tag" at all. Chergles already started working on removing "trivia" and useless "crap" (if I may say so) to make this article worth to be named an enziclopedic one. Some more time and effort will sure replace the sections in question to the better. Unless you're looking for a big praise of Bush you should be pleased when the overhaul will be finished. --Floridianed (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little side remark: Even so the majority disapproves of him, this article shouldn't become a "smear". He gets that plenty from other sources but here it doesn't comply with WP-rules. --Floridianed (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should something be said about the major success of the surge that President Bush ordered? This is in regards to what AuburnPilot said about objectivity.SP4 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush Sewage Plant

I would like to incorporate this story into the George Dubya Bush article. I think this inclusion is appropriate because the Bill Clinton article mentions that a street and library are named in his honor; the Ronald Reagan article mentions that an airport (DCA), aircraft carrier, among many others, are named in his honor; and the Jimmy Carter article mentions that the Carter Center and a street in India (Carterpuri) are named in his honor.

Many references!

  • New York Times - An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace: "... President Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom ..."
  • Huffington Post - 'George W Bush Sewage Plant' Proposed In San Francisco: "... Looking to honor the forty-third President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, the recently formed Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is looking to change the name of the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility ..."
  • The Times (UK) - San Francisco to vote on George W Bush sewage works: " ... San Francisco is to hold a vote on whether to rename one of its largest sewage treatment facilities after George W. Bush, in what supporters describe as “a fitting monument to the President’s work” ..."
  • The Chronicle - Satire at the ballot box to 'honor' Bush: "... They're the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, but don't let the serious name fool you. The group's intentions are in the gutter: They want to rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant come January, when the next president is sworn in ..."
  • Slog - Re: The George W. Bush Sewage Plant: "... So naming naming sewage treatment plants—or other suitably disgusting facilities—after the bastard seems like a great idea to me ..."
  • Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco

Thank you! --Inetpup (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, don't claim consensus when no discussion has yet taken place. As it is, your proposed revision[2] is excessively long and worded in a smug manner inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. If the proposed name change were approved, it might deserve mention as a single sentence somewhere, but certainly not its own subsection. From what I've seen it looks like your motive here is purely partisan. Honestly I'm surprised this has its own article at this point - a sewage treatment plant hardly seems notable, especially considering that this proposed name change has not even taken place. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would not go with the text he used, but a brief mention is in fact appropriate in this article. A one-liner referencing the NYT piece. This is an established fact. --BenBurch (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, User:BenBurch, I'm on the same page as you. I'm happy to agree that a one-liner with the a reference to the NYT is appropriate. May I offer that you introduce this text (instead of me)? If I introduce it, I take the chance of offending the other guy, Jc-S0CO regarding WP:NPOV. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make no mistake: I have no problem with adding the content itself, or with you personally. It was the manner in which you presented the content which I took issue with. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000 primary/election

This article has the involvement of many, many editors but I am sorry to say that the 2000 primary section looks badly written to me. I think it needs a complete rewrite.

Why not just cover the facts? That McCain was the major competitor, Mrs. Dole dropped out, Forbes was running. Instead, it covers some disjointed statements about church, conservatives, and Rove.

In WP, I am not for or against Bush, I merely write facts and try to make it sound like an encyclopedia. Is there any opposition for me to re-write it? If so, I'll fuck off. Chergles (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. At least the first paragraph reads more like a newspaper's "funny" section than an election report. If you rewrite please don't use the "f" word ;) --Floridianed (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- a rewrite is definitely in order. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would definitely help. Thanks for volunteering. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st draft is done. It's suppose to be factual and neither a smear of Bush nor a glowing report of him. I think the re-write covers the primaries more comprehensively than the previous version of quotes, church, conservatives, Christ, etc. Of course, it can be improved. Overall, I think the length is appropriate to Bush's biography as the primary was a notable event but not worthy of long paragraphs. Chergles (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. Thanks for your work and don't worry about possible further improvements since you took the first step and a good job. Maybe others might kick-in to help. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&oldid=226112356"