Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of George W. Bush

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of George W. Bush

This is a WP:POVFORK of George W. Bush in which information is cherry picked and placed in this article with a bias. As it is criticism it is never going to be possible to achieve WP:NPOV. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made a minor formatting fix to the nomination.Raven1977 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criticism of Bush has been a major issue in his presidency and thus warrants an article. It is important and possible to provide the article a NPOV.--Wadeperson (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Material is relevant, but splitting off criticism into separate articles is not warranted. Some of the material can be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I noticed that a criticism of Obama article has been deleted twice as a POV fork. Happyme22 (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge The nominator has used the same "argument" for deletion as I have on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin. To use a further argument I have also used on the VVP article, and this is in the context of the VVP, but is also relevant to this article...As people are now saying that Criticism of... articles should have both positive and negative points mentioned, isn't this still just a POVFORK? Think about it, take, Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy. This does not belong in a criticism article but in Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy, which has its own article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Domestic_policy should be in a section of Vladimir Putin called Domestic policy, and perhaps have its own article Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin. (something that I am currently working on ideas for). ALL of these issues should be covered in their separate sections which do or don't currently exist, not in a POVFORK; by ensuring that the information is included in the relevant sections of the main article (which I will attest to, all information in this article is present in Vladimir Putin), this is the only way that coherence can be achieved and further WP:NPOV. This goes not only for this article, but it is my opinion on ALL criticism of articles. Additionally, and unfortunately, these criticism articles are not written in the context of academic criticism (which by definition covers all sides), but in the context of basic criticism, they are not meant to be NPOV. Once relevant material is merged into relevant articles, it should be deleted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, please stop misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines, as I wrote in the other AfD, WP:POVFORK states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit. travb (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misrepresenting anything. Common sense would tell one that negative criticisms (which is all that these articles are in the first place) are best dealt with in the main article and/or other subsidiary articles. But of course, if we want to keep this project amateurish, then sure, let's create negative criticisms of everything. We can start absolute crap such as Criticism of Australia, Criticism of United Airlines, Criticism of Star Wars, Criticism of the PlayStation 3, Criticism of the Washington Post, Criticism of Queen Elizabeth and Criticism of cats (the dog lovers would like to work on that one I am sure). You may be an inclusionist, but at some point common sense should prevail, and I ask mind you not to misrepresent my position again...I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Keep, but maybe a rename might be in order. To say that the man has received a large amount of criticism in his tenure would be an understatement. Far too much than can be adequately covered in his own article without bloating it to excess. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What could an article full of negative views and criticisms be renamed to? I've proposed that the material be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I've worked on the main Bush article, and it deals prety well with criticisms of the president; nothing from this criticism article should be moved into the main article, rather we should create a better, fairer picture of President Bush by placing the positives right next to the negatives and not lump the bad into a POV fork, which this is. An Obama article regarding crticisms has been deleted twice as a POV fork and rightly so. The same applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I don't know. I'm not sure if "criticism" is a good way of putting it, but I'm not sure what ELSE it could be. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the most criticized U.S. presidents, both domestically and internationally, and the encyclopedic and well referenced criticisms would overwhelm the Bush article. Edison (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response to the comment right above yours regarding WEIGHT and the main Bush article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to comment on this: to say that he is one of the most criticized presidents is not a fact. You have to consider that criticism of a sitting president is going to be intense. The huge surge in the size of the internet as a whole, and a general increase of media and opinion outlets means that much more criticism of anyone is available to each member of the public. The fact that you've seen more criticisms of Bush does not mean that he has genuinely been more criticised than any other president, the huge increase of information sharing since he took office just means more of it has reached you. For example, I'm sure that Lincoln was just as controversial, but the average citizen would see only criticism in the form of an editorial in the local newspaper and word of mouth. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very strong keep, as the best way of keeping the main article under control. Probably we do need a general discussion of this type of article; it is not necessarily a POV fork. I think a reasonable degree of forking by what I wll cll "aspect" is necessary on the really major controbersial topics to keep the articles coherent. Both this and Putin count, as such, for similar reasons: as I said there, otherwise this would overbalance the rest of the article. for historical figures, it is possible to integrate this--see the article on Stalin for a good example--but for contemporary ones this is the best we are likely to manage. DGG (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whether the subject is historical or contemporary, there is no reason that all articles should not follow the Stalin article example, because that is how one would expect it to read in a professional publication, such as an encyclopaedia. All it takes is for us all to wake up to the fact of what it is that we are trying to build here; we don't see other publications doing things such as this, and it is these types of things which makes WP look like a wannabe and amateurish. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Presidency of George W. Bush as a focus upon criticism is inherently not NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can never be anything but a POV fork. Jtrainor (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a "Public perception" or "Presidency" article... yes, Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president because of Iraq and the subprime mortgage crisis. He also has the highest approval rating of any president, after 9/11. It's a WEIGHT issue to be so negative when he does hold a record for being viewed that positively. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 3 of the 15 Criticism articles (all 15 still on wikipedia) which were nominated for deletion were nominated by Sceptre were closed the same day Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, another was closed "Snowball Keep, Everyone voted to keep" (Scientology controversies) travb (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per WP:POVFORK:
"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit
Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, they are WP:Split articles, such as Criticism of Vladimir Putin, Criticism of Tony Blair around 100 more:

criticism articles
Criticism of Google, Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of Islamism, Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Qur'an, Criticism of Wal-Mart, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Criticism of Family Guy, Criticism of debt, Criticism of Greenpeace, Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of intellectual property, Criticism of Microsoft Windows, Criticism of Java, Criticism of Esperanto, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, Criticism of social nudity, Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Criticism of Holocaust denial, Criticism of monotheism, Criticism of Windows XP, Criticism of Coca-Cola, Criticism of George W. Bush, Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Criticism of the Iraq War, Criticism of college and university rankings (North America), Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Criticism of the War on Terrorism, Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance, Criticism of Ultima Online, Criticism of libertarianism, Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, Criticism of Blueprint Negev, Criticism of Torchwood, Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, Criticism of Ellen White, Criticism of fractional-reserve banking, Criticism of MTV, Criticism of YouTube, Criticism of the World Trade Organization, Criticism of Yahoo!, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), Criticism of The New York Times, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Linux, Criticism of Osama bin Laden, Category:Criticism of religion, Criticism of Adobe Flash, Criticism of sport utility vehicles, Criticism of Second Life, Criticism of recycling, Criticism of patents, Criticism of EDO Corporation, Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's schemata, Category:Criticism of journalism, Criticism of the Space Shuttle program, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Criticism of non-standard analysis, Category:Criticism of Islam, Criticism of McDonald's, Category:Criticism of feminism, Category:Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of marriage, Criticism of eBay, Category:Criticism of monotheism, Criticism of Sylvia Browne, Scientology controversies, Category:Criticism of atheism, Criticism of the 9/11 Commission, Criticism of NASCAR, Criticism of IPCC AR4, Criticism of ESPN, Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Criticism of Traian Băsescu, Criticism of the FRA law

I could go on, google list 152 wikipedia pages,[1] but I think the point has been adequately made.

Of the 15 Criticism articles which have been put up for deletion, only one was deleted, and it was recreated two years later (linux). The overwhelming majority of AfDs were closed keep (12), and 1/3 (5) where closed speedy keep.

Article for deletions of criticism articles
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies Snowball Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Google Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Facebook Speedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Windows Vista Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wal-Mart The result was kept without prejudice against a consensus merge/redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism KEEP (no consensus) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Family Guy Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the BBC Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Hinduism Speedy keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible No consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Coca-Cola Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch No consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Linux deleted in 2005, but recreated in 2005. Also: Criticism of World of Warcraft Keep

Not only does policy support such criticism articles, but the overwhelming consensus (15 out of 15 articles up for deletion in the past are still on wikipedia) is to keep such articles.

travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I really don't think that says much. Each case is different, and this one may be different than all the others. An Obama criticism page has been deleted twice as POV fork. This information can be merged into Presidency of George W. Bush, Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration, Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States, George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States, etc. to create a better, more fair picture of President Bush and his two term presidency. Why lump all criticisms into a separate article when they can be placed alongside other information to create a more balanced picture? Happyme22 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are going to cite universally accepted policy and guidelines which they expect other editors to follow WP:POVFORK, then it is reasonable to show that articles such as this one are also universally accepted.

You state that each case is different, yet in the next sentence you use the Obama deletion as an example to bolster your viewpoint. You can't have it both ways.

The Obama speedy deletions are covered more on the this article's talk page.

travb (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not about integration with the main article or whether criticism articles should remain separate or not. The need for subarticles is based on the amount of information to be communicated. Bush has certainly generated enough fodder for an appropriate subarticle. That it's not complimentary is not an issue, witness Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, one of the sorriest examples of bashing (U.S. more evil than Stalin at his worst) which editors defend to the proverbial death. PetersV TALK 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Criticism of George Bush is a fact, not a point of view. Encyclopedias record facts, they do not need to endorse them. Duh. In any case, deleting the page would not change his reputation as probably the worst President since Warren Harding, if not even further back. It's strange that someone would even try to get this deleted. Wik idea 13:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: there are plenty of other venues (articles) to refer criticisms. Any criticisms or praises of an individual should be in the prose with the relevant topic, i.e. Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Having a collection of criticism seems to be about as unencyclopedic as it gets, because it serves with no balance or context. Also, consider this: how long would an article titled Praise of George W. Bush last? I think a lot of editors may be losing objectivity and voting based on thier political views. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a valid issue from his presidency. Many other criticisms article exist, so why shouldn't this one? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many other criticism articles exist. this one is too big to merge into the main article. We should strive to give info to the reader.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POINT nomination by a person unhappy with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin. There is no real reason offered in the nomination. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I agree with WP:POINT, you will see that nominator is User:Muscovite99, who voted (may as well not allude that these AfD's are anything but a vote, because common sense is thrown out the window all too often) keep based upon the existence of the very same article that he has now nominated whilst that AfD was running its course. But seeing as there are plenty of merge and delete votes, there is no reason to not let this run its course also, and hopefully some common sense will prevail. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'll point out -- again -- that the idea that "criticism is inherently POV" is wrong, both by common sense and by Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, it's obvious to anybody who has been paying attention to world affair that criticism of Bush is a very large topic with considerable notability, with no lack of WP:RS in sight. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to deny that my nomination had been encouraged by Russavia's nomination that he has referred to. But there is a great actual difference between the two articles. Putin's criticism ought, in rights, be named "Allegations about criminal activity of Putin's regime" as most of the "criticism" is in fact just that; whereas Bush's is essentially partisan (party political) bluster and posturing, which is the integral part of any proper democracy's political life. Apart from that, a healthy discussion was generated and broadened, i think.Muscovite99 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Vladimir Putin eats babies for breakfast? We've got a reliable source that says he doesn't eat babies for breakfast, which given that denial there must be accusations out there that he does eat babies for breakfast? As evidenced by Putinism, you only are interested in presenting the most grotesque image possible, at least you have the decency on that article to admit that you don't even allude to maintaining any degree of POV. But funny is that your argument just now in regards to Bush is exactly the same as with Putin - the Putin criticism article is also partisan; i.e. those who are opposed to Putin...where is the 85% Russian POV in that article? By the way, Sergey Viktorovich sends his regards. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of criminal activity of Putin's regime is the most minor of transgressions, that's merely about money. It's the rewriting of history taught throughout Russia, strong-arm tactics with the former republics and near abroad seeking to reimpose Russian hegemony, et al. that are an issue. "Criticism" of Putin, "criticism" of Bush are both totally valid as worthy encyclopedic topics.

Using syllogisms such as Putin "eats babies for breakfast" to advance arguments with charges of grotesqueness and indecency is nothing but a collection of red herrings.

If you wish to address what is "grotesque" then perhaps you'd like to suggest to Putin he adopt a more critical view of the Soviet past. PetersV TALK 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not about Putin vs. Bush. It's about facts. Solar Apex (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.