Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 49

message: I came across the American Teetotalers Category and noticed that George W. Bush is on it.  My understanding of a teetotaler is someone who chooses not to drink alcohol due to personal preference, NOT someone who no longer drinks alcohol because he/she is a recovering alcoholic (or problem drinker).  Am I incorrect?  If not, can we remove this category from George W. Bush's article?  (I'm asking first, since I know edits of this page are controversial) Viciouslies 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Teetotal is also an adjective, which is how its currently being used (its "became teetotal" not "became a teetotal").--Mbc362 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teetotaler?

message: The article's mention of President George W. Bush's response to Katrina is not correct.  He sat around for a whole week before he did anything, and even that was weak.  There was no massive federal response as the article leads one to believe.  He was at Camp David partying while people were suffering.  Someone, please change this!  I don't know how.
206.219.127.97 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree generally.  I assume you understand that Wikipedia articles are to strive toward neutrality in terms of point of view (what they abreviate here as NPOV) and accuracy in terms of facts.  I think the best way to keep our personal partisan POV from skewing our perspective and editing on such an important and potentially controversial page is to keep it as factually accurate and researched as possible.  This section appears fairly accurate regarding facts and NPOV.  It is true that the last sentance of the second paragraph regarding Bush mobilizing the evacuation (if that is what you are focused on) is probably both in need of support and too vague, which makes it therefore potentially innaccurate or misleading.  Other than fixing that sentance, I would leave what is here alone and maybe add a sentance about the President's later speech from New Orleans and promise of federal assistance. I would be willing to take this on later in the week if others agree (I am new to Wikipedia as well, but have taken the time this week to become familiar with the ins and outs of editing, including the policies and guidelines.  I also have seen that more senior and experienced Wikipedians like ElKevbo and Mbc monitor this page and I would look to their thoughts.)--JLSWiki 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice time line of the event can be found here.  I agree with JLSWiki that the section is generally correct and well sourced with the exception of that one sentence.  A date needs to be given as to exactly when Bush ordered the mobilization of the National Guard, and probably when they actually arrived in the affected areas as well.--Mbc362 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, your last sentence was incorrect; it should read: "I also have seen that more senior and experienced Wikipedians like ElKevbo and Mbc monitor this page... :) --Mbc362 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a relevant book on Amazon and summarized some of its facts. Dicklyon 02:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be rude Dicklyon, but I'm not sure that I'm completely comfortable with your edit.  First off, it needs to specify which agencies his announcement failed to spur into action.  Secondly, the sentence "Bush's team failed to react to the breached levies..." sounds like it could be the personal view of the author rather than established fact.  If possible, it should mention specific dates as to when his actions occurred rather than just that he failed to react.  If we could get dates as to when he mobilized the national guard, when they arrived in the affected areas, how long the recovery effort lasted, exactly how much federal aid was given, etc., I think the section would be greatly approved.  Hopefully the book you've found includes this as well.  Lastly, the phrase "trapped in their attics by rising water" seems like it would just add emotional charge to the article without adding any facts.--Mbc362 03:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with Mbc362. I think we've just gone from possible POV to extremely POV. There's a happy medium, but lines like "Bush's team failed to react to the breached levies..." need to be avoided. I'd also agree with Mbc362 that specific dates and reaction times should be mentioned. As Computerhag correctly put it: State the facts and let them speak for themselves.' AuburnPilottalk 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mbc362 and AuburnPilot regarding the specifics (except I think it went from slighlty Bush POV with regard to the one sentance discussed earlier in this string to slightly critic POV with the manner of the latest edits).  Criticism and opposition views should be stated as such, including the basis with support, but major areas of criticism should be included in a president's bio as such.  I think that Dickylon can add to/edit his prior edit to make that more clear.JLSWiki 13:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is available on Amazon's "search inside the book" feature if anyone wants to check it, and others, and attempt a better rewrite.  Perhaps I did overcompensate for what I saw as an outrageously misleading POV in the previous version. Dicklyon 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started adding dates which I felt were relevant, please revise as necessary as I'm not much of a writer.  Can anyone find a reliable source for the final death toll or cost of the recovery effort?  Every site I view seems to have a different "official" number.--Mbc362 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for rewording my sentences, however I'm still concerned that the phrase "but his announcement failed to spur these agencies to action" comes off as POV.  Is there any data to back that up (in which case I would add that to the article) or is that just a claim of the author?  Unfortunately, I don't have a physical copy of the book and amazon.com won't let me read past page 6, so I can't view the text you're working off of.--Mbc362 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is close enough to fact or at least a generally accepted view that it just needs tweaking to make sure it is NPOV and supported; perhaps something like: "...but it appeared after a few days his announcement failed to spur these agencies to action sufficient to mitigate the growing disaster."  and then of course the references.  -JLSWiki 17:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina 

message: Would it be possible to qualify that the stem cell research would be on cells slated for destruction?
:Specifics of the bill should be included in the bill's article, not Bush's.  Since the article already states that the research would be on "discarded human embryos" I don't think anything else needs to be added in that respect.  Also, please sign your comments by adding four ~ at the end.  Mbc362 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree all around.  There probably should be a small Stem Cell section, but the new material added is definitely done in a POV way (the editor makes it sound like Clinton was against stem cell research, and does not even mention the fact that Bush's one and only use of the veto was on this.  Gwernol's version last night is the most factual.  I would say revert to that, and improve as necessary.-JLSWiki 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried to make it a little better.  To make it sound like a Clinton ban in the 90s is POV because it was a GOP idea and bill that never would have gotton there but for 1994 control shift.  Still Clinton signed it.  Then added the 2006 veto, which if is the most significant point vis a vis bush, without which a stem cell section of his article is silly.  Still, could be better with an intro sentance about what stem cell research is and the controversy, and maybe one later about how things are shifting in the past few years because of breakthroughs, but (a) I dont have time and (b) this shouldnt get too long here.-JLSWiki 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem Cell Research 

message: Should "Social Security" be capitolised in a heading?
I'm new and i dont want to edit it unless im sure 
thuglastalk|edits 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It's a proper noun.  --ElKevbo 09:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Or just yes if you're not insanely picky about spelling. Which I am. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitolisation 

message: It should be noted that the mural is from a republican (in the IRA sense, not American) area -  who are a minority in the country. The majority support the British government (even though it is Labour), although not necessarily it's relations with Bush. Please make a note of something like this on the page as I feel it's biased against British conservative loyalists.
:The majority? Please define "country". And "republican" has a single definition - even Buckingham Palace recognises that.--Shtove 02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: West Belfast mural

message: I just made a one letter change to this page (war on terror-->war of terror) and I have to say I'm impressed with the response time. 30 minutes, exactly. Excellent work!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Burrito (talk • contribs) 22:50, December 26, 2006
:Please don't do that again.  --ElKevbo 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had better things to do than reverting this page over and over again. If you want to look at how long it takes to correct bad edits you can click history page  without changing content. I understand why you did that but please don't do it again.--Pethr 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realise it would annoy Quantum Burrito 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about annoying people.  It's about the fact this wikipedia is open and free to all those are members.  People don't dedicate their time watching every edit, vandalism, etc.  They get around to it when they see it and catch them.  Plus a test to do what?  See how easy it is to get away with an intentional mistake and the response time to revert it?  ViriiK 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a policy page on this. Don't make edits with the intention of testing how well Wikipedia functions, because believe me, it's tested every few seconds as it is. You should try being on the Recent Changes patrol for one hour straight; I think you'd have a different opinion after that. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Response

message: It is common practice to provide links to related articles in Wikipedia, and under no circumstances could having such links be considered POV. If you have a problem with the NPOV of the articles being linked to, bring it there. But there is no question these are valid links. And if you want to create a link to Issue of whether Bush is a great or the greatest president, you can certainly do that. --Leifern 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently six subcategories and 55 articles in the George W. Bush category.  If you include the articles in those subcategories, there are probably well over 200 articles.  So how do you plan on deciding which ones to include in this article's "See also" section?  I repeat my assertion that your previous selection was POV.  In fact, nearly any selection of these links will be inherently POV unless some (likely arbitrary) "neutral" selection criteria are established such as length, age, number of sources, etc.  I don't know of a good way to make that selection and unless someone can suggest one I recommend we leave these links in the categories where they belong.  --ElKevbo 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These two are the biggest 'controversies' surrounding him beside the war. In NPOV interests, for balance, and to head off undue weight, they have been added to the GWB template. We are neither pro-Bush nor anti-Bush. Moscatanix 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: What about nominating this article as good one? -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipediawanna Talk? 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you'll be successful (this article is way too unstable) but you're welcome to try!  --ElKevbo 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Walter Humala has been indefinitely blocked. As far as a good article goes, I'd say it's much closer to meeting the criteria of GA than featured article. It shouldn't be too hard to maintain a good article on a US President; especially the current US President. With Walter Humala's block, I'll review the criteria and see how this article's chances look. AuburnPilottalk 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year this article was a pretty terrible piece of hagiography.  As of today, it really is a good article.
24.59.97.162 06:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: The Global Warming disaster should be cited as controversies at top of the article or added to criticisms. The Bush admin has finally recognized Global Warming "because sea ice is melting" as a threat to Polar Bears and will have to limit green house gasses on American industries one they are an endangered species.
To little too late.
By Rich
15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles don't really talk about or criticize Bush.  Perhaps you can find sources that do, for example on his flip on considering carbon dioxide to be a pollutant to be regulated.  Find such sources, and then you can add to the criticisms section. Dicklyon 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We're following the same CO2 rules that we did under Clinton.  We're all still driving gasoline-burning cars without any additional tax on emissions.  This is not a Bush-specific issue.--Loodog 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mbc, thanks.  Your edits are an improvement (and thanks for not mentioning having to fix my spelling - is there a spell checker on this thing I am not seeing).  The only edit you made that concerns me is the removal of the introduction I had to the 2007 SOTU piece as there was anticipation last week that he was going to go further than he did, and discussion afterwards as to whether or not he was actually now accepting the connection between GW and human activity - which I thought was the necessary context for his statement.  Maybe not, or maybe not without a specific cite (I thought that was in one of the cites but if not you are good to hold that context out for now.)--JLSWiki 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it felt too much like commentary, not specific facts or even criticism.  If you can find a cite for it, I guess it could be reinserted but it would probably have to be reworded slightly.  I'm using Firefox, which has a spell checker for user's text input.--Mbc362 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not mistaken; Presidents negotiate treaties (not congress).  Then the treaty is then sent to the senate to be ratified, after which the president signs it.  Bush has refused to resubmit it to congress for ratification, therefore rejecting it. --Mbc362 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Mbc is right and since I wrote this, let me respond to this series of comments:  The point of the article is what bush has done and not done with enough context to make it understandable and enough pointers for the reader to know where to go to learn more.  All the controversy and background and detail about Kyoto belongs in its article. (I thought the point about the US being the largest emitter might be helpful context (but I put it in parens because it was so indirect) but I agree with Mbc's removal if that appeases the others.) Kyoto was a work in progress when Bush came into office, Clinton/Gore had championed it, but to get it through congress they were working on making it better.  It became effective in 2005.  In 2001 Bush announced that he would not support it/would not send it to Congress for ratification, and withdrew US efforts to negotatiate a satisfactory treaty for more countries to sign.  That was a very significant move and deserves this brief mention in his article, in a somewhat larger mention of Global Warming in his Environmental Policy section.  All are welcome to improve it.
I'm looking for the entry in your article on President Clinton that discusses his failure to submit Kyoto for ratification.  Can you point me to it?70.153.19.133 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have a problem with Clinton's page, you need to discuss it on that talk page, not here.--Mbc362 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is not my Clinton page (I haven't even read it), or Mbc's Clinton page; its yours/ours/everybody's -- just make sure any changes you make there are NPOV -- and see comments above as well.-JLSWiki 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess you are talking to me, but please don't talk in all caps, I am not blind and I have a headache.  And please do not question my good faith in trying to keep this accurate and NPOV.  The first point I originally put in was the Kyoto turnaround.  Notwithstanding some attempted discussion above, that is a known fact, and the only qeustion is how much of Bush's explanation do you put in - I put in his key points, a POV pushing editor would not have done so.  The second thing I added, related to that, was the ongoing controversy over his acceptance/lack thereof on the global warming science - the existence of this controversy is not controversial.  (Look at the speech you cited and the other references and see how much he says we don't know or that is in debate.)  I just made some minor changes that might appease you.  Apart from that, you are free to improve this section as you wish and as good faith editors will allow.-JLSWiki 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, the obvious one is the Clear Skies initiative and the followup to the Clean Air law.  I started to work on that a few days ago but got swamped on other things so go for it if you have time.-JLSWiki 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure how to explain how Bush "feels about environmental concerns," as he (and basically all politicians) is prone to making contradictory statements about his beliefs depending on who the audience is, except to list his specific policies in this area. Specifically what parts of the section do you think need to be parred down, or is it just the entire section in general?--Mbc362 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Rollo44, I respect your goal of keeping the length of this article manageable, but I think perhaps your suggestions go too far in places.  This article is necessarily going to cover the Bush presidency (not just what the man thinks, but what he and his administration says and does as well).  While there may and should be sub/sister articles for greater depth of detail and information in each major area, this main article should cover all major aspects of his and any presidency.  Under Environmental Policy, clearly the global warming controversy, the Clear Skies initiative, and perhaps one or two other things should be referenced, and must be referenced with enough context to A) be informative and point the reader to where to go for more information, B) be accurate, and C) be NPOV.  There are times you cannot just say something simple in one sentance, without violating one of those three principles or other WP policies.  Please keep all this in mind before you, or you suggest others, remove or move the work of others.  Thank you.-JLSWiki 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would never, ever, suggest the removal of information. Merely more optimal organization of that information. I definitely agree with you Mbc362 that what comes out of politicians' mouths is hardly representative of their actions, so in that sense I agree the section should focus on policy. JLSWiki, I definitely understand your "with enough context" remark. It's only my opinion that the section is too long for the main page, not a serious issue. ~ Rollo44 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take no offense - I think all your edits have been good here recently, I am more concerned that others might take your comments as license to act more rashly. We're good from my perspective-JLSWiki 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming Disaster 

message: (subheading being added 1/26/07 to distinguish earlier debate from discussion that started this week about new material-JLSWiki 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mbc, thanks.  Your edits are an improvement (and thanks for not mentioning having to fix my spelling - is there a spell checker on this thing I am not seeing).  The only edit you made that concerns me is the removal of the introduction I had to the 2007 SOTU piece as there was anticipation last week that he was going to go further than he did, and discussion afterwards as to whether or not he was actually now accepting the connection between GW and human activity - which I thought was the necessary context for his statement.  Maybe not, or maybe not without a specific cite (I thought that was in one of the cites but if not you are good to hold that context out for now.)--JLSWiki 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it felt too much like commentary, not specific facts or even criticism.  If you can find a cite for it, I guess it could be reinserted but it would probably have to be reworded slightly.  I'm using Firefox, which has a spell checker for user's text input.--Mbc362 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not mistaken; Presidents negotiate treaties (not congress).  Then the treaty is then sent to the senate to be ratified, after which the president signs it.  Bush has refused to resubmit it to congress for ratification, therefore rejecting it. --Mbc362 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Mbc is right and since I wrote this, let me respond to this series of comments:  The point of the article is what bush has done and not done with enough context to make it understandable and enough pointers for the reader to know where to go to learn more.  All the controversy and background and detail about Kyoto belongs in its article. (I thought the point about the US being the largest emitter might be helpful context (but I put it in parens because it was so indirect) but I agree with Mbc's removal if that appeases the others.) Kyoto was a work in progress when Bush came into office, Clinton/Gore had championed it, but to get it through congress they were working on making it better.  It became effective in 2005.  In 2001 Bush announced that he would not support it/would not send it to Congress for ratification, and withdrew US efforts to negotatiate a satisfactory treaty for more countries to sign.  That was a very significant move and deserves this brief mention in his article, in a somewhat larger mention of Global Warming in his Environmental Policy section.  All are welcome to improve it.
I'm looking for the entry in your article on President Clinton that discusses his failure to submit Kyoto for ratification.  Can you point me to it?70.153.19.133 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have a problem with Clinton's page, you need to discuss it on that talk page, not here.--Mbc362 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is not my Clinton page (I haven't even read it), or Mbc's Clinton page; its yours/ours/everybody's -- just make sure any changes you make there are NPOV -- and see comments above as well.-JLSWiki 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess you are talking to me, but please don't talk in all caps, I am not blind and I have a headache.  And please do not question my good faith in trying to keep this accurate and NPOV.  The first point I originally put in was the Kyoto turnaround.  Notwithstanding some attempted discussion above, that is a known fact, and the only qeustion is how much of Bush's explanation do you put in - I put in his key points, a POV pushing editor would not have done so.  The second thing I added, related to that, was the ongoing controversy over his acceptance/lack thereof on the global warming science - the existence of this controversy is not controversial.  (Look at the speech you cited and the other references and see how much he says we don't know or that is in debate.)  I just made some minor changes that might appease you.  Apart from that, you are free to improve this section as you wish and as good faith editors will allow.-JLSWiki 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, the obvious one is the Clear Skies initiative and the followup to the Clean Air law.  I started to work on that a few days ago but got swamped on other things so go for it if you have time.-JLSWiki 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure how to explain how Bush "feels about environmental concerns," as he (and basically all politicians) is prone to making contradictory statements about his beliefs depending on who the audience is, except to list his specific policies in this area. Specifically what parts of the section do you think need to be parred down, or is it just the entire section in general?--Mbc362 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Rollo44, I respect your goal of keeping the length of this article manageable, but I think perhaps your suggestions go too far in places.  This article is necessarily going to cover the Bush presidency (not just what the man thinks, but what he and his administration says and does as well).  While there may and should be sub/sister articles for greater depth of detail and information in each major area, this main article should cover all major aspects of his and any presidency.  Under Environmental Policy, clearly the global warming controversy, the Clear Skies initiative, and perhaps one or two other things should be referenced, and must be referenced with enough context to A) be informative and point the reader to where to go for more information, B) be accurate, and C) be NPOV.  There are times you cannot just say something simple in one sentance, without violating one of those three principles or other WP policies.  Please keep all this in mind before you, or you suggest others, remove or move the work of others.  Thank you.-JLSWiki 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would never, ever, suggest the removal of information. Merely more optimal organization of that information. I definitely agree with you Mbc362 that what comes out of politicians' mouths is hardly representative of their actions, so in that sense I agree the section should focus on policy. JLSWiki, I definitely understand your "with enough context" remark. It's only my opinion that the section is too long for the main page, not a serious issue. ~ Rollo44 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take no offense - I think all your edits have been good here recently, I am more concerned that others might take your comments as license to act more rashly. We're good from my perspective-JLSWiki 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: *Discussion re new Environmental section/Global Warming subsection

message: As it currently reads, the sentence describing the mid-term elections:
:"It was one of the major reasons for what Bush called the " thumpin' " of the Republican Party in November 2006 mid-term elections."
After visiting the cited web site, not once does it use the slang " thumpin' " instead of "thumping." This seems to be a subtle stab at Bush's intelligence or perceived accent. The citation seems fine, but I'm not sure why the direct quote "thumping" is even necessary. 
Perhaps an alternate sentence could be used without using a direct quote: 
:"Bush feels his lower approval ratings may have contributed to Republican losses in the 2006 Mid-Term elections."
Or something of this nature.  Mshrop 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling correction made. If anyone else agrees that a re-write of the sentence mentioned above would improve the quality of the article then be sure to say so.  Mshrop 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I reverted it before reading this discussion; my bad.  Still, I like "thumpin", being a Texas boy myself. What do y'all think? Dicklyon
I think you're not from Texas. Governor 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not clear who you're addressing.  I'm from El Paso, TX. Dicklyon 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs to reflect the wording of the source.  If the site says "thumping" so should the article.--Mbc362 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Change it and use a source that quotes it as "thumpin'"--Mbc362 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did it.  Apostrophe was there already; it's just hard to see.  I used the ref with the specific quote attribution. Dicklyon 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid-Term Election Description 

message: This line needs a source:
"Additionaly, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, but as President, Bush has refused to allow the SEC to release the full report."
It's not sourced in the detail article either. I'm going to try to remember to excise it in a couple of days if no one can come up with a source. --Skidoo 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to find a source a little while back and failed.  Remove it immediately, if a source is found it can be re-added later--Mbc362 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it myself--Mbc362 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How about "President Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to open the full file on his investigation" from the Washington Post?   Dicklyon 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...I guess my previous search wasn't as thorough as I had thought.  I re-inserted the content and added the citation.--Mbc362 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEC / Harken 

message: Here is a CNN article regarding the grenade...although it is not commonly called an assasination attempt, there was a grenade thrown. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/11/georgia.grenade/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.240.159.77 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the article.  Thanks!--Mbc362 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrence for the assasination 

message: George and Laura Bush are especially supportive Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, regarding her policy statements pertaining to No Child Left Behind. Spellings, on PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, called states' resistance to the No Child Left Behind Act the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I think it's regrettable, frankly", Spellings said, when the achievement gap between minority and Anglo kids is quite large in many urban areas. And I think it's unfortunate for those families and those students that they are trying to find a loophole to get out of the law as opposed to attending to the needs of those kids. That’s the notion, the soft bigotry of low expectations, as the president calls it, that No Child Left Behind rejects."
Spellings further said, The way our public school systems are structured, currently states don't recognize accrediting agencies such as the International Association of Schools and Colleges for the purpose of funding. That means that we are rather confined to the six regional associations which accredit schools based on pre-planned, management controlled offerings instead of looking to the student first, and determining what that student's needs are; what his or her interests, aptitudes, skill levels, learning style and emotional maturity may be. By accrediting and funding only so called top-down schools without reference to a student's individuality, we have very little chance of correcting imbalances.In many urban centers, for example, only 29% of high school freshman will graduate four years later. That is totally unacceptable from my standpoint, and it is something that would be corrected if the I.A.S.C. format for accrediting schools were recognized. I haven't been able to get that done during my tenure, however, because of the powerful vested interests involved. And, it would be something that the President would be interested in discussing during the next two years."71.142.218.202 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This material sounds like it might belong in Spellings' article or the NCLB article instead of this one.  --ElKevbo 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is true of all this material it would seem.  Spellings statements in this regard (about the status and prospects of the NCLB law at this particular point in time) cannot possibly deserve so much proportional space in this enduring encyclopedia article on President Bush.  Moreover, this should not be added to this article or to the NCLB article without some effort at balance to make it NPOV by including the opposing POV from the states (many republican and democratic governers) and democrats.  In the Spellings article it might be OK as is.--JLSWiki 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this quote is a hoax, try googling for "International Association of Schools and Colleges".  Why would spellings talk up an organization that doesn't seem to exist outside of it's own website? Pete.Hurd 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to the Education Section

message: If yes, why? Sfacets 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, if yes or no, why?--Looper5920 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you detail your reasons on why you reverted it's removal?
Why is this template only found on this biographical article and not on others? There is no mention of GWB on the template, whereas all the articles mentioned carry the template. Sfacets 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, why don't you explain your decision to arbitrarily remove a template that has been on this page for months now.--Looper5920 12:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Very well, then it will be decided by consensus votes vice unilateral deletion.--Looper5920 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC
I believe the War on Terrorism template should definitely be included on this page.  It encompasses the central issue(s) and events of his presidency.  To ignore that does not make sense.  President Bush is the central figure in the War on Terrorism as ecompassed by the template, more than bin Laden (although I think the template should be included on his bio as well).  Any POV debate should be about what the "War on Terrorism" declared by his administration is and what it includes(i.e. whether the template itself with its contents is NPOV is a different issue which I assume has been and is debated elsewhere), but if there is a War on Terrorism (and then a template), it is his war more than than anyone's.  In other words, President Bush himself has defined it broadly and expanded it to include the war in Iraq and other initiatives - all referenced in that template.  This is clearly explanation enough for why it might be included here and not on other bios. I don't know why, structurally, there is no link to GWB on the template (of course there are no links to any individuals' articles) but I am not sure why that matters here.  Put simply, if one wants to understand President Bush's place in history, one needs to understand the "War on Terrorism" and therefore his Wikipedia article should facilitate that understanding.--JLSWiki 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I say remove it, primarily because it's mostly used on topics solely about the War on Terrorism, (and I don't think that should change), but also because the bottom of the article is just getting silly. Once you get to the point where an article includes six templates at the bottom (excluding persondata, sisterlinks, and successionboxes), you just have to ask, which of these is really relevant and useful? This one isn't, so let's just remove and kick the ugliness down a notch. Picaroon 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment about cluttering the botom of articles with boxes is well taken, but it doesn't look too bad. There is a huge section before it already cluttering the bottom, which is the references. If this was removed for reasons of clutter, then the references section ought to go as well. I don't know what the internal US view of the Bush presidency is, but from the UK, it is all about the war on terrorism. He started the war. He made it a major campaign issue. It has gone badly wrong, and as a result has destroyed his public popularity. Unlike Blair, he had no prospects for a further term to loose, but for both men it has permanently altered what will be remembered about them in history. Bushes war did destroy Blair, led to his impending fall from office, and skuppered his real chance to have become Britains longest serving prime minister. Sandpiper 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion - should the <nowiki>[[Template:War on Terrorism]]</nowiki> be included in this article?

message: Occasionally i have a look at this page to see what what has become of it. This time I started reading and noticed the word plurality. I'm an educated brit, but when I saw this i thought, 'what the hell does that mean, exactly'. OK, its blue linked the first time it appears, and maybe wiki seeks to force people to learn new words, but generally if I introduce a technical concept which is not going to be understood by even a well educated person, I would explain it as I go. There is a creeping tendency to include technical words into wiki when it is not necessary, and detracts from the general readability of articles.Sandpiper 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil. There's no need to suggest someone use Simple Wikipedia just because a word is unfamiliar to them. Picaroon 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  plurality 

message: Just browsing the article, and noticed this. the sentence is a bit nonsensical, and surely it would be better to add a bit more information? the grammar suggests that the person has been mentioned before, which is not true. the only bit of information there is the exact distance from Bush that the grenade landed, but surely someone could find some more? id do it myself, but im a new user, so i dont have much that i can do right now on this page. anyone got any ideas about what to do? Hagger 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia Incident 

message: I might be nit-picking, but I think this phrase needs rewording:
"He was elected the 46th Governor of Texas in 1995, and remained there until 2000, when he chose to run for the office of president."
I'm fairly certain that he chose to run for president well before 11 or so months prior to the election, probably years before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.252 (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a grammatical error, that's a semantic error.  A grammatical error is the fact that "remained there" should be "remained in that position", as "there" is ambiguous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sys Hax (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Error 

message: I notice a reference to "North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il" in this article.  Is this an acceptable NPOV term?  We don't use it on his article, although I see there that he's not technically President either, so I'm not sure what a suitable one word term would be. -CarelessHair 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an objective term, and it doesn't matter who would dispute it. The term doesn't comply with neutral point of view. Picaroon 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, although I see why we would want to stay with something else.  Personally, I'd just say 'leader'. WBHoenig 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Jong-Il - dictator? 

message: Ok, I have reverted Susanlesch's changes  again. The correct names for the people and the article titles are Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Changing Bill Clinton to William Clinton creates a link to a disambiguation page and is counterproductive. Just like Dick Cheney's article is Dick, not Richard, these links should remain as they are and have been. Common practice and WP:MOS situation here. AuburnPilottalk 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something so simple

message: "Stoner" redirects to this page. Vandalism! Damnit people I dislike the guy too but lets let the facts be facts!
:I checked, I don't see anything like that. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stoner Redirects

message: The phrase "Following news of a second collision, Bush remained with the class for seven minutes while they finished reading a story" really doesn't serve much of a purpose unless you describe the reason why Bush didn't jump up and run out of the room. . .As it stands, it actually serves no purpose, and confuses the paragraph--its pointless and should either be expanded on or removed. .  . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.62 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below under "No Comment?"-JLSWiki 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 9-11

message: Doing some house keeping here on the article--is there some odd reason why like 50% of the statements are unsourced *ON* a high profile BLP controlled article...? I just removed like 2-3 paragraphs that were tagged for some time and added more tags. F.F.McGurk 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a quickly-moving and heavily-edited page about a controversial political figure.  It's going to be years before this article really slows down and starts to become stable.  We do our best but it's no surprise that a lot of things slip by us.  --ElKevbo 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem. I'll try to help out to keep the cruft out. F.F.McGurk 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better use of your time would be to find the citations yourself!  I understand that you mean well, but, unless I'm mistaken, none of the material you removed was controversial nor was its accuracy in question and it really should not be removed so casually. Perhaps you should read WP:Ignore all rules.  If the unsourced material is controversial, or its accuracy questionable, by all means remove it immediately, but otherwise please search for a citation yourself or bring it to the attention of other editors.   In an article this long thats constantly changing, editors may miss the  tag.  By the way, if you had followed the link to ISAF you would have seen that the material you removed was sourced there.--Mbc362 20:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sourcing 

message: The White House Press Corps section is way too specific for an article like this; it spends multiple paragraphs focusing on one journalist and question.  It needs to be thoroughly trimmed and then broadened in scope and substance.  As of now it's probably POV. Joshdboz 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White House Press Corps 

message: Why have my edits been reversed?  Are you administrators SO paranoid about the George W. Bush article that you just indiscriminately and compulsively go and revert edits that say negative things about George Bush that you think MIGHT by some SMALL CHANCE be subjective, providing a bogus or non-explanatory edit reason for such reversions?
I believe that I was as NPOV as was appropriate.  I didn't say Bush WAS a sociopath, I was objective by saying "these are the things Bush did, and this evidence SUPPORTS the view that Bush is a sociopath."
If you feel that negative statements about Bush belong in one of the other linked articles or another article altogether, please tell me in that case.  Otherwise, I suppose it's regrettable that commonplace vandalism has drowned out legitimate edits by conditioning page integrity enforcers to be too paranoid.  It's no one's fault, though -- the vandalizers can't be blamed because vandalizing is so much fun, and the administrators can't be blamed for being conditioned by it.
I suppose I'll do some vandalizing now.  Cya!  --Ajo Mama 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me put it like this:  If I were an American, I would vote for a ham sandwich in preference to GWB.  And yet, AuburnPilot beat me to that revert by a few seconds. I can't believe you're trying to defend that nonsense. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted your edit because it did not comply with WP:RS (along with WP:NPOV).  There is nothing indiscriminate or compulsive about what I do.--Mbc362 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "these are the things Bush did, and this evidence SUPPORTS the view that Bush is a sociopath."  Do you realize that the one website you cited was utterly unverifiable, biased, and non-mainstream?  If you could find such an article in a scientific journal, than there might be room for it, but random websites do not count. Joshdboz 12:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a question.  Why do we spend the time to humor idiots? --Looper5920 13:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good question looper. Darkmiles22 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting on Bush's sociopathy 

message: Hi everyone,
I've recently noticed that User:Sasha best has removed several sections from this article. If you go into the page history, you would notice the missing sections. I had warned this user about this before, and so has User:Luna Santin. I don't know too much about George W. Bush, so I'm not going to restore the removed paragraphs until someone can verify that they are appropriate to the article. This is the section that User:Sasha best has deleted. Could you take a look at it? Thanks, lovelaughterlife♥talk? 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Whitehouse Press Corps" bit probably does not belong in this article; as for the rest of it, I would say it probably should be restored.--Mbc362 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore? 

message: ...in the sixth paragraph of the lead, is it "thumpin'" or "thumping"? A user keeps reverting my reverts to the original word, which was "thumpin'". Thanks, lovelaughterlife♥talk? 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk section about it, make sure it's still referenced right, and refer others to talk in your edit comment. Dicklyon 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you watch the video , the first time Bush says it he says "thumpin", but when he reiterates himself several seconds later he seems to say "thumping".  Apostrophe seems the way to go. Joshdboz 01:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, the referenced article says "thumpin'", so the page should say the same. --h2g2bob 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't want to edit war over such a small issue, so... 

message: From the first paragraph: "Bush first won the presidency in 2000 by winning a majority of the Electoral College vote, but becoming the third president in U.S. history to be elected without winning the popular vote (the 1876 and 1888 elections being the other occurrences)."
The grammar is off. It should be noted that Bush is actually the fourth president to win the election but lose the popular vote. John Quincy Adams was the first in 1824 when he won with 30.9% (the vote went to the House).
:I reworded the introduction to fix the grammar (taken from an older version).  It had originally included J.Q. Adams as the first president to not win a plurality of the popular vote, but that was taken out.  I assume it was removed because not all the states had conducted a popular vote in that election.  However, there was an official popular vote (albeit a partial one) which Adams lost, and given the fact that he also lost in the electoral college by roughly the same margin it is highly unlikely that he would have won it even if all states had a popular vote.--Mbc362 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost the popular vote 

message: Who got rid of the the thing about the 2nd term?--69.113.131.124 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be a little more specific? AuburnPilottalk 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean the the sentances in the intro about his 2004 victory being the first one in 16 years where someone won a majority of the popular vote because of the third party candidacies in 92, 96, and 00 -- I didn't remove it, I just moved it to the section on the 2004 election. I don't think it's historically worthy of being in the intro. To avoid being too long and redundant the introduction shouldn't the intro just be an overview and then maybe mention the most historical points, which with Bush would be his family dynasty, the 2000 election and controversy, 9/11 and the war on terror/war in Iraq.-JLSWiki 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe this rant left by the anon user entitled "2nd term" is what he/she is speaking of. If so, I removed it here as off topic trolling. AuburnPilottalk 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who? 

message: A while ago I suggested to make an economic policy page, none have propped up, and I don't know much about it in detail.  So, I currently have a stub/outline going (the organization is probably pretty bad as of now), although it's pretty much re-organized material from this page; but I invite users to contribute to it:
Economic Policies of the George W. Bush Administration
Thanks
Fephisto 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration which does have an economic section.  Considering that that article is quite bloated, you might want to shorten up it's economic section and move more detailed info to your new article.  Joshdboz 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviting Users 

message: I have deleted such exerpt "Since his reelection he recieved heavy criticism, even from his his former allies, on Iraq war..." from criticism and perceptions section because it's already written in the beginning of the article. I am also considering deletition of   those lines from the table about George W. Bush as a governor that are already written in the the table about him as a president. How do you think, is it right? Sasha best 17 January, 2007
Repeating a sentence from the introduction in the main body of an article is not ipso facto bad style. However, a paraphrase might be better. Blastfromthepast 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explananation of my last deletition 

message: i just changed an unimportant part of the article that said that sammy sosa was a member of the white sox and changed it to say that he was a player for the cubs. i don't know how to make it into a link properly so i hope someone will pick up the slack for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnakeRunsCBWest (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sammy Sosa 

message: This article is biased. Dubya receives way too much criticism in this article - it should be re-written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyte88 (talk • contribs) 06:08, January 23, 2007
:You'll say too much, I'll say way too little. Guess that puts article right there where it should be - in the middle. Lovelight 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much criticism!

message: One interesting area unexamined in the article so far is the fascinating debate over Bush's M.B.A. management style. One of his Harvard Business School (HBS) professors is famously on the record for calling W. one of his worst students ever, in radio interviews on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! and elsewhere. Meanwhile, an analytical article by Thomas Lifton in Italic textAmerican Thinker (2-3-2004)Italic text makes the case that W. focuses on a few big themes, and doesn't sweat the small stuff. Lifton, who was a year behind W. in HBS, maintains that HBS's insistence on quality means that even C students had to meet a demanding minimum. But the obvious inference that one can draw from Lifson's article is that W.'s emphasis on trying to preserve the Republican Party over the long term necessarily means that W. has deliberately not moved up unexpected events, like restoration of New Orleans, to higher priority. That, in and of itself, is a legitimate criticism of both G.W. Bush and the Republican Party. Vigorous debate is essential to democracy. Thus, I disagree with JLSWiki, above...Joe 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did I say?  Or did you misunderstand me?  Seriuosly. -JLSWiki 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet some criticism is still missing

message: This article needs updating, it's a couple months behind. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see below and let's dicuss removal there-JLSWiki 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States]] 

message: Diplomatic visits made by Bush were accompanied by both large-scale and small-scale protests.
Has there been any US President since say, the Vietnam War period, who hasn't been greeted with large and small protests when they've made state visits abroad? This sentence needs to be reworked to make a claim that Bush has been especially subject to protests with reliable, NPOV supporting references Bwithh 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed this line from Foreign Perceptions section

message: Vicente fox is not the president of mexico anymore, could anyone change that?Ptikobj 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 08:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mistake in one of the pictures footnotes 

message: Is there really a need for two infoboxes? Wouldn't it be better to merge them, like what was done on John F. Kennedy and Dick Cheney. --Philip Stevens 10:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two infoboxes? 

message: I know this very minor compared to actual subject content but I feel like the intro is far too long. It needs to be cut down and not be so specific. While Bush is a very important (and polarizing) figure and he does deserve the extended info, it's meant as an introduction to the subject, not a detailed biography. I would do this myself but am not 100% how to do it without screwing it up. Pinstripermike 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but there are so many editors insisting on their particular views in the intro that it's hard to see how it could be pared down without an edit war.--Shtove 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am one of the users that added to it and here is why...1)what was there a month ago was not balanced/neutral and, to Shtove's point, rather than remove someone else's points, I augmented; 2) It's not really an intro anymore as much as a summary of the most important points, which does not seem inappropriate for such an important figure and such a long article.-JLSWiki 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Layout 

message: Add this to the article?  The following is a link to a 30 minute interview with Bush in which he lays out Iraq policy, Iran, economy, etc. It's the first substantial interview he's given since his State of the Union Address.  Here's the link ---> An NPR Interview With President Bush.  --172.132.153.245 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Radio Interview With Bush 

message: I was just comparing the Wikipedia articles on John Kerry and George W. Bush and noticed that John Kerry has a huge section entitled "family background." It goes into great length describing his somewhat privileged background. Shouldn't there be a comparable section on the GWB article? His family is even more privileged than Kerry's. 70.22.194.133 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family background 

message: Why is Bush's picture replaced with Hitler's?
I just noticed that. Probably some hater that is not showing an NPOV.
Fixed vandalism on this page. 
It said "No more war!" through the entire thing. Reverted it.
Ninjarrr 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more vandalism comments

message: I want to add the following essay from Howard Zinn. Could anybody do that? Thanks. http://www.alternet.org/story/47467/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritonus05 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2007
:I honestly don't think that essay would contribute factually to this article if the link were added.  Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, after all.  --DachannienTalkContrib 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Congrats! George W. Bush is now a good article. There were a few editing errors that needed fixed, which I did myself. There are two things though that could make the article a little better. First, I'd correctly quote the quote given in the inaugural address. There were a few other quotes on the page properly done, so I know someone knows how to do it. If not, see WP:MOS.
Secondly, the 'Social services and Social Security' section could use some balance. It offers very little in the line of criticism for proposal. Though there's nothing bluntly POV that would cause the article to fail. If the size of the article could be summarised a little, that'd also be a plus. Though, overall a job well done for such a controversial figure. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Addhoc 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: I have requested a review of this article at Good Article Review.  I don't believe this article meets the "Stable" criteria, as it is (s)protected and under a constant stream of vandal attacks.  --PresN 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism is excluded from that criteria. Basar 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Review

message: There is actually no article under the website that the link listed takes you to... Nor could I find any information on such a study to begin with... If anyone cannot provide a credible source for this information, it should not be included in the article. Either someone else can take it off, or I will wait for a reasonable explaination... Thanks. Jgrizzy89 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page for the old article was deleted.  It happens all the time. I've changed the citation to one that works.--Mbc362 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Villian/Hero of the Year