Talk:George H. W. Bush

message: In regards to this edit – the meeting wasn't too significant, what I think is important is that Bush as DCI knew and supported Noriega. How about Noriega was also a paid asset of the CIA during the 1970s, including during Bush's tenure as Director of Central Intelligence? More details at Manuel Noriega#Relationship with the U.S.. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised text added. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A better sentence for demonstrating that Bush knew and supported Noriega during the 1980s would be this from the Noriega article: Bush, now U.S. vice president, met again with Noriega in December 1983 to discuss support for the Contras. Drdpw (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  But he was DCI in 1976, not during the 1980s.  Could you explain more specifically what you dislike about the text I added, so I can revise it to address your concerns? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was having problems with the phrasing, and have added revised text. Drdpw (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok cool, thank you for your help. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Noriega as CIA director 

message: The Biden infobox RfC and its closing comment (which mentions "other politicians") seem to me to be applicable to this case. I do not see anything there that suggests that the consensus favors excluding senate-specific assignments because they are senate-specific. Rather, the closing comment refers to "the names of successors and predecessors, and dates of service, especially in the minor offices" and notes that Biden "has an unusually long political career and large number of chairperson stints" and that "some other politicians also have long infoboxes which could benefit from shortening".
The infobox in this article is likewise bloated with the names of successors and predecessors and dates of service in offices that are minor compared to presidency and vice-presidency. John Dowdy, Bill Archer, Charles Yost, John A. Scali, Mary Smith, David K. E. Bruce, Thomas S. Gates Jr., Vernon A. Walters, E. Henry Knoche, William Colby, and Stansfield Turner are all names that do not appear anywhere in the text. Not even once. The associated dates do not either. The argument that prevailed in the Biden infobox RfC is that the inclusion of such information contravenes MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since infoboxes are supposed to "summarize key facts that appear in the article". These names are not key facts; they do not appear in the article. Such information is meant for the succession boxes at the bottom. Do we really need a new RfC for the same purpose just a year later? Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have the previous offices held before the vice presidency been eliminated? RNC chairman, CIA Director, UN Ambassador, Envoy to China, and US Representative certainly seem noteworthy. 2601:140:8E00:2050:0:0:0:6A79 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See the preceding comment. In short, it's because Bush is far better known as vice president and president, and a discussion at the Biden infobox RfC resulted in the consensus that offices that are minor in comparison to the presidency need not be included in the infobox in the articles about presidents. I am beginning to wonder if a new RfC is needed for Bush specifically. Surtsicna (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so. Consensus reached regarding one politician's infobox does not establish a consensus for all politicians' infoboxes; neither does it establish a standard for what constitutes a "minor office." That should have been evident when your removal of offices from the infobox was reverted. Drdpw (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any arguments for keeping the names that do not appear anywhere in the text? Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox length 

message: Why does B1 fail? Adamdaley (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history 

message: Paragraph three should say FOUR (rather than three) pieces of bipartisan legislation and include the Civil Rights Act of 1991
That is a major bipartisan piece of legislation that should certainly be mentioned at the head of the article 66.117.143.199 (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. The wording in the lede says "championed and signed". While he certainly signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, he vetoed the similar Civil Rights Act of 1990, so I don't think I would describe him as "championing" the 1991 version he signed. If we were to remove "championed" from the lede, then I think listing the Act of 1991 with the other 3 make sense. However, not sure if doing so would be an improvement as seeing which pieces he did champion is interesting information as well Cannolis (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022 

message: In this edit, the nonsensical "|last2=Writer|first2=Staff" was added to a reference -- please remove it.  Also, the template should really be "cite news" with periodical= instead of website=.  66.44.21.145 (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ARandomName123 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! 66.44.21.145 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks, . For anyone watching, this is part of a big checking and cleanup job, for which more volunteers would always be appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023 

message: https://time.com/5019182/george-hw-bush-groping-allegation/
ghwb had been accused of groping women in public. granted, i believe dementia was largely to blame but this is still too important to exclude from the article NotQualified (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  there is no mention of ghwb groping women and apologising for it