"==Minor factual corrections== 

 I made some (imho very) minor changes to reflect the actual status of 2004 Election and reported Irregularities.     

 == What is revert war over? == 

 I don't see much actual debate on this talk page by either side.  In my opinion there really is no reason to list election controversy info on Bush's bio article, it serves no purpose.  A bio page is not a place for indirectly applicable current events or information that changes rapidly in my opinion.  In fact, for the election fraud to be exposed it may take a few honest republicans.   

 :I agree about ""indirectly applicable current events"", but there's nothing indirect about including the 2000 and 2004 elections here.  Those events were central to Bush's bio.  It's clear that election controversies should be mentioned in this article, with appropriate wikilinks for more detail.  The close question is what should be said about the elections in the lead section as opposed to the body of the article.    

 ::Agreed, a simple sentence with a wikilink to the election controversy article for more info should be sufficient.   

 ::Agreed, a simple sentence, that there have been concerns in some quarters as to the fairness of the elections, prompted in part by their closeness, the degree of controversy and polarisation of issues, however it is important to note that 1) there have been such issues in many elections, 2) nobody has pointed a finger at GWB as being involved in these, and  3) at this point the Democratic Party have accepted the results. Whats the issue?   
 :::I vote for the one  
 :::Your point 2 is false, plenty of people allege (without much evidence) that GWB was involved in the 2000 irregularities.  As to the dispute, why not finesse it?  There's no need in the second sentence to say either that the election was decided by SCOTUS or that GWB ""was elected by defeating Gore"".  Why should the election or the opponent be mentioned at all in the 1st paragraph?  If Gore must be mentioned, simply state that his opponent was Vice-President Gore.  That leaves the lead-in neutral on the controversy by avoiding it entirely.   

 ::::Yes, the elections don't even need to be mentioned, the focus on those small issues is ridiculous for a president that has fought two wars and staved off an economic depression after an attack at the economic and financial heart of the U.S.  The elections may ultimately become significant if they lead to reforms such as internet voting or proportional representation, but short of that they are merely a mindless obsession for some.  

 :::::This argument is pretty blatant POV.  If you approve of what Bush has done, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's no basis for withholding facts about the elections.  If Bush is a shining hero and the facts about this aspect of his noble career take a bit of the luster off, well, that's the way the ball bounces.    

 ::::::He is hero is some areas, mass-murderer in others, lets stick to the facts and keep them in perspective.  The election stuff should be mentioned here, especially since it meant he had to overcome a hostile and divisive environment, but it doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraphs, if people are opposing its mention elsewhere in the article, I'll support its mention there. it doesn't match the encyclopedic POV of other presidential bio's to include it in the overall summary.   

 :::::::James, I certainly think the election controversies should be fully referenced in the article itself.  Anything else would be white-washing.  I'm just not sure it needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. Perhaps adding a simple descriptor such as 'controversial election' or 'hotly contested election' would be a reasonable compromise for the lead-in paragraph.   

 ::::::::I agree that the close question is how much to put in the lead section.  My view is still that some people, especially non-Americans, will come to this article having heard vaguely about election controversies, and not even being clear on the distinction between 2000 and 2004.  For their benefit, while the 2004 election is ""fresh"", I'd include brief references in the lead.  The lead will have to be rewritten anyway