Talk:Public image of George W. Bush/Archive 1

message: This page could really be better.  It is appropriate that Bush's own page be as NPOV as possible, but this article is specifically about various pov's.  It could likely hold more positive povs, but it is also missing the major criticisms of Bush, specifically the Iraq War, specifically the extremely controversial build-up to war.  Also I think that that there can be done some extreme re-working of the domestic section above the Hurricane Katrina section.  Does there really need to be such an extremly detailed poll account in this section?  It doesn't seem to fit.  68.42.64.204 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: What is this article actually supposed to be about? Numerous sections (Hurricane Katrina, event screening, Plame affair, and secret prisons) don't mention the public at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, it only serves to let a certain political party vent their frustrations with the president.  I don't see a Public perception and assessments of Bill Clinton (substitute any other president for Clinton) article anywhere.  This article's a joke and represents a big part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Dubc0724 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public perception

message: Although this article contains lots of negative opinions about Bush, that's fine, because the negative perceptions are reported in mainstream media sources.  So long as this article sticks to "public perception and assessments" of GWB, it's neutral.  It falls miserably into POV, however, when it gets into the "whys", because these are subject to much interpretation, which amounts to original research.  As such, I am going to eliminate anything from the article which attempts to "connect the dots", but leave in the well-sourced negative polls and assessments of GWB.  Morton devonshire 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that we would not be crossing into POV territory if we also included information related to notable and significant researchers and editorials (not DemocraticUnderground or Freep, of course, or even the DNC or RNC themselves) who offer correlations between events/policies and poll data. If the New York Times runs an in-depth investigative article on Bush's poll ratings correlated with surveys and historical data, that should be fine to include and summarize. Captainktainer * Talk 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To do that would require that we decide these are the events which led to the negative poll results, which would be original research.  If the NYT says that these are the reasons, in the same article that states the polls, then that's the NYTimes, not us.  But we can't make the correlations ourselves.  At all.  Morton devonshire 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the NYTimes references earlier articles or articles from different sources with the polls, that would be acceptable, correct? Captainktainer * Talk 02:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just keep it simple and not do that, okay?  That way we can form a consensus.  Morton devonshire 02:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least for now I can get behind that, but once the article stabilizes a bit more, I think we should revisit this and allow for more complexity. Captainktainer * Talk 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats vs. Whys

message: ===Portrayal as a Southron===
The anti-Bush media in Northern cities (SF & NY etc except FOX News) has tried to portray the President as "Southern and stupid", while receptive media outlets down South have tried to paint him as a "good old boy".  Bush does not in fact fit either perception.  Yankee Bushes Elder and Younger, like Pennsylvania Dutch Eisenhower, are of Northern origin and their Texas connections are what some Southern Democrats criticize as Carpetbagger in their components.  For instance, large corporations in sectors such as the oil industry are typically part of the Gilded Age establishment began in the Reconstruction era and founded by Northerners, with Scalawag support.  Southerners are not typically in control of technological industries, which were the mainstay of the GOP when it started out as a repackaging of the American Whig Party.  The Bush family's political and/or economic prominence began in Ohio, the mainstay of Lincolnian Republicans actively hostile to the Solid South.  Many conservatives question Bush's commitment to national security as it pertains to Mexico, wondering about Columba Bush's influence on this apparent laxity in handling illegal immigration to the United States.  A charge yet refuted, is that Bush uses cultural appropriation (Southern strategy) in order to maintain Southern partisan allegiance.  Recently, a Washington insider has come forth and stated that the Bush Administration is not "in bed" with religious conservatism as once thought.  Florida congressman Mark Foley's activities, as well as Arizona congressmen Jim Kolbe's, have raised question about the legitimacy of neoconservatism and whether it is indeed feasibly operative or a technique to gain ratings.  These events can be interpreted in the light of the Bushes' percieved cold shoulder to Zell Miller's Jacksonian keynote speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention.  Numbers of former Democrats support Bush because they would not support Kerry, especially with the culture war rhetorics of both Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich ever since the Clinton Administration.  Bush's declared reverence for Reagan has some Conservatives wondering what is so "conservative" about a Hollywood star, especially since Hollywood is percieved as anti-American.  They wonder why the GOP that Joseph McCarthy identified with would court Hollywood as representative of their party.
:Let's see how to reintegrate the text.  Hasbro 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I suggest you find and supply us with sources backing up all the statements in the paragraph. That would help a lot in judging and possibly rewriting this text. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text because of inappropriate language, not because of content dispute. 

message: The anti-Bush media in Northern cities (SF & NY etc except FOX News) has tried to portray the President as "Southern and stupid", while receptive media outlets down South have tried to paint him as a "good old boy".  Bush does not in fact fit either perception.  Yankee Bushes Elder and Younger, like Pennsylvania Dutch Eisenhower, are of Northern origin and their Texas connections are what some Southern Democrats criticize as Carpetbagger in their components.  For instance, large corporations in sectors such as the oil industry are typically part of the Gilded Age establishment began in the Reconstruction era and founded by Northerners, with Scalawag support.  Southerners are not typically in control of technological industries, which were the mainstay of the GOP when it started out as a repackaging of the American Whig Party.  The Bush family's political and/or economic prominence began in Ohio, the mainstay of Lincolnian Republicans actively hostile to the Solid South.  Many conservatives question Bush's commitment to national security as it pertains to Mexico, wondering about Columba Bush's influence on this apparent laxity in handling illegal immigration to the United States.  A charge yet refuted, is that Bush uses cultural appropriation (Southern strategy) in order to maintain Southern partisan allegiance.  Recently, a Washington insider has come forth and stated that the Bush Administration is not "in bed" with religious conservatism as once thought.  Florida congressman Mark Foley's activities, as well as Arizona congressmen Jim Kolbe's, have raised question about the legitimacy of neoconservatism and whether it is indeed feasibly operative or a technique to gain ratings.  These events can be interpreted in the light of the Bushes' percieved cold shoulder to Zell Miller's Jacksonian keynote speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention.  Numbers of former Democrats support Bush because they would not support Kerry, especially with the culture war rhetorics of both Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich ever since the Clinton Administration.  Bush's declared reverence for Reagan has some Conservatives wondering what is so "conservative" about a Hollywood star, especially since Hollywood is percieved as anti-American.  They wonder why the GOP that Joseph McCarthy identified with would court Hollywood as representative of their party.
:Let's see how to reintegrate the text.  Hasbro 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I suggest you find and supply us with sources backing up all the statements in the paragraph. That would help a lot in judging and possibly rewriting this text. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Portrayal as a Southron''

message: President bush has stated that "We do not torture,". Yet, many people and governments  don't see it that way and have staged several protests.  These sentiments are partly because of the pentagon's determination that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat , and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop attempts at limiting torture , including legislation by President Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by the McCain Detainee Amendment. Furthermore many people    are outraged by the Bush Administration's use of Extraordinary rendition, where individuals are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight.  Bush defends this practice on the basis that [...] the United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that.   
The Bush administrations connections to torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.
Please post counterarguments, criticisms, and edits.  --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current revision

message: Deleted the "See Also - Gabriel over the White House" as it was a over half-century old film with absolutely no connection to George W. Bush. Just because some critics have compared him to the main character doesn't make it worthwhile to add. If it was, we'd have to add every reference to villains or propaganda figures people have brought up in connection to a president. Edders 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence rephrased. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Gabriel over the White House' inclusion irrelevent 

message: If the article is read, it clearly states that a source, not Tony Blair himself, questioned the Bush's intellect.  This clearly needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.158.143 (talk • contribs)  31 Oct 2006
:Sentence rephrased. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blair did not question Bush's intellect...

message: Love him or hate him, there has been alot of stuff about Bush in popular culture, so I'm adding a section on it. I'll try to make it neutral as possible, although the stuff I'll mention is mostly negative on him. If anyone has anything positive to say for him, feel free to add it. (Justinboden86 01:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush in Popular Culture

message: I think we have consensus, but I proposed the merger, so I'd like someone else to check this.
*Favoring: Chaser (as proposer), AuburnPilot, theProject
*Alternate, "public perceptions and criticisms of GWB" favored by RockMFR
*Alternate, moving polling info here, but leaving the remainder of this article alone, favored by the Socialestesq
*No clear opinion:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE
So a 4-1 consensus to move the polling, but a spirited debate above about whether to keep a "Criticism of" article. I'm disinclined to do anything with the remaineder of the article until that debate is more resolved. However, I think we're ready to move the polling info.--Chaser T 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means. If I've got the time, I'll move the polling data to-night.-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's moved. Now to get it sorted...--Chaser T 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Thank-you. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 06:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: I don't see what TIME naming Bush "Person of the Year" in 2000 and 2004 has to do with criticism of the man. 71.203.209.0 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how this is "highly suspect". Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but even in an article about criticism, WP:NPOV still applies. More specifically, the undue weight section of NPOV which reads: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." TIME's person of the year is the man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." In other words, it could be criticism or it could be praise. AuburnPilottalk 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from the Person of the Year article: 
"There was a massive public backlash in the United States after Time named Ayatollah Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979.[citation needed] Since then, Time has generally shied away from choosing candidates who are extremely unpopular with a majority of people for crimes they've commited. Time's Person of the Year 2001—in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks — was New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It was thought that the rules of selection ("the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news") made the obvious choice Osama bin Laden.[citation needed] Previous choices such as Adolf Hitler were cited to demonstrate that Person of the Year did not necessarily mean "best human being of the year." The issue which declared Rudolph Giuliani as Person of the Year included an article that mentioned Time's earlier decision to make Ayatollah Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979 and the 1999 rejection of Hitler as "Person of the Century." The article seemed to imply that Osama bin Laden was a stronger candidate than Giuliani for Person of the Year and Hitler was a stronger candidate than Albert Einstein for Person of the Century, but they were not ultimately selected due to what the magazine described as their "negative" influence on history.
and
"In recent years, the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too U.S.-centered, which is a departure from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. Until Bono received the shared title in 2005, Time had gone over a decade without recognizing a non-American individual. A breakdown by nationality also shows that more than a half of the people who have ever been selected for the title have been Americans. Furthermore incumbent US Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were designated Men of the Year in the years of the election that led them to the high office in the following year, without them necessarily having been influential in any other way at the time."
It may be the official stance of Time that the award is not necessarily an honour, but as you can see there is clear bias in favour of popular and American candidates.
This artcle is purely about Criticism of George W. Bush. The title says so. These days the Person of the Year award does not have enough to do with criticism to include it in the article.A gx7 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Person of the Year

message: I am just starting to review the plethora of Bush articles. Could any of you who are familiar with them tell me if there is any mention of the 'WMD Joke Controversy' from the 2004  Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner?
This one:
:"Family of Slain Soldier Calls Bush WMD Jokes "Disgraceful""
:-snip-
:"But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing."
:"George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country.""
Thanks! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  would that mean That Carter tried to serve on a "newkeeuh" submarine. do we even need to mention anyone but bush in this article or maybe we should just say other presidents have made the same error Cryo921 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I could possibly see the justification for removing Jimmy Carter, but not the others. AuburnPilottalk 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on further reading of the article, I don't even see Kennedy mentioned. Ford is only mentioned in passing...I'd say to meet the citation's claims, Kennedy and Ford should be removed. The sentence should also be reworded to ID Jimmy's pronunciation as southern. AuburnPilottalk 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'WMD Joke Controversy' 

message: According to the citation used only Eisenhower used the same pronunciation as George W. Bush not any of the others listed. So I belive the others should be taken off. Unless another citation cane be found specifically stating the other Presidents listed. Gang14 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  would that mean That Carter tried to serve on a "newkeeuh" submarine. do we even need to mention anyone but bush in this article or maybe we should just say other presidents have made the same error Cryo921 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I could possibly see the justification for removing Jimmy Carter, but not the others. AuburnPilottalk 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on further reading of the article, I don't even see Kennedy mentioned. Ford is only mentioned in passing...I'd say to meet the citation's claims, Kennedy and Ford should be removed. The sentence should also be reworded to ID Jimmy's pronunciation as southern. AuburnPilottalk 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nucular

message: I've copied this article to my userpage and I'm working on making the article more substantive. I should get some sections added to this article over the weekend. Feel free to edit the userpage version. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When do you think you'll be putting it back? I wanna make some minor changes but don't feel like doing it twice :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and change the main article. I'm primarily using the one on my userpage to outline the article, and I shouldn't disturb any minor changes you make. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision underway 

message: I feel there should be some mention of Bush's strong religious beliefs in this article, which have been criticised by atheists such as Richard Dawkins. There is also the question of how it relates to his mental capacity - his beliefs seem to be quite simplistic. He genuinely seems to believe in absolute good and evil as tangible forces, suggesting a lack of coherant comprehension of the world. Mojo-chan 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ehhhhhh...I don't think that linking his religious belief with his intellectual capacity would be helpful. A mention of criticism of his black-and-white/Evangelical Christian/neoconservative world view might fit in, though. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely though, it is legitimate to examine his beleifs and how they affect his actions and decisions. For example, some argue that he tends to simplify things into a good/evil stand-off, when in fact the situation is more complex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mojo-chan (talk • contribs) 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelectual capacity and religious belief 

message: We are missing criticisms on the following: 
*Patriot Act (Has just a mention-we need more)
*Clear Skies Act
*Healthy Forests Act or Initiative
*NSA
*No Child Left Behind (Again, needs more info)
*Guantanamo
*Signing Statements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.255.229.66 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: While this article is deemed acceptable, leftists feel the Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions page should be deleted. Feel free to chime in on the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions--Jayzel 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing polarization and politics. Al Gore had two articles: "criticisms ans misconceptions" and "controversies". Now he has one, like Bush does here.--Jackbirdsong 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Al Gore is verboten

message: "It should be noted that Bush had better grades in college than either Al Gore (who still did graduate cum laude, contrary to Bush),[44] or John Kerry."
I have reservations about this phrase, because even its sources aren't clear - they are comparative studies that themselves aren't clear ('grades as an undergraduate' - what about other years, final scores at graduation?) - one cannot take one instance of higher grades and present it as an argument for all-round intelligence. Anyhow, this article is not a Bush apology; it is about published material critical of Bush. We should either complete this section with global and comprehensive statistics, or we should remove it. THEPROMENADER 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "higher scores than" 

message: I'm sorry to say, but this almost entire section is speculative bunk. No Bush IQ score has ever been published to date, and the "studies" mentioned (including one requiring a paid registration - no good here) base their 'reasoning' (as there were no 'findings') on a 'translation' of SAT scores to IQ points. Well, for starters, you can prepare for SAT exams, so I don't know how they can compare this to an IQ test. 
This section is far too speculative, comparative and apologetic and must be improved to something containing hard, referencable fact. THEPROMENADER 08:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say so, but the fact that a reference needs subscription does NOT make it an unsuitable ref. Simply get yourself a subscription if you so desperately want to read it. That one ref is, I assume (as you do not specify it), a perfecly acceptable scientific study (and media coverage of it), published in a peer-reviewed journal, which estimated the IQs of all US presidents. That study was NOT based on SAT scores. There were other, web-published estimates that used the SAT scores in the article previously, but when I re-added this stuff, I deliberately left those out this time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the study is so established, important and reliable then I think you can find a more accessible websource or other reference. I seem to remember reading something about paid sites, but will have to look this up later. Needless to say that the paper is at best an educated speculation - it is not founded on hard fact, as none to date is available on the subject. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accesiblity of a source and reliability are two unrelated concepts. For example, studies published in the scientific journal Nature are generally regarded very reliable, but you definately have to pay for most of its contents. Discouraging the use of not-online sources will only skew the bias in Wikipedia even more, therefore there is no such policy. Scientific papers, printed magazines and printed newspapers make perfectly valid sources, also in the absence of an online version. As all scientific studies, this paper has a certain level of speculation, but then again, the whole concept of IQ is not as sturdy and rigid as some people think. Finally, the study was covered often by other newspapers etc, establishing its notability: Times: Het Nieuwsblad (Belgian): History News Network:. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine, but this does nothing to show that your source is not a widespread one; rather a vague and selective speculative one chosen to 'prove' a point. If you would like to be as objective as the articles you cite, then you must cite the same, or present your information in the same way in the same context as they - after all, it is their (the press') criticism that you should be citing here - instead of making a single case for a single point of view. THEPROMENADER 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what you are trying to say there. If you suggest the news sources should be cited instead of the primary research article, that is fine with me and I will be happy to rewrite the section accordingly. If you mean anything else, please explain. In addition, there is no POV here, the research article estimated the results of all presidents in the same way, and this came out, like it or not. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I was pretty straighforward, but to try again in clearer language: the only way this article can remain NPOV is for it to be a real (not selective) reflection of press coverage concerning George W. Bush - as a whole. Any comparitive essays not a comparison with the record of every president in history would be also NPOV. I do not think that "estimations of IQ's", no matter how worthy the source, is worthy of publication as a cited source for concrete information concerning IQ's, should not be presented as such, and IMHO is not even worthy of mention in a factual article; this article exists as a temoinage of a high level of criticism of George W. Bush, it is not an article to present arguments for and against the criticisms themselves, as this could never be anything but POV. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, we simply disagree :). You say this article should be about press coverage of GWB. The IQ study is covered by press. You say any comparison should include many (and preferably all) presidents to date. The IQ study does compare almost all presidents in recent history. Then finally, you you say you still think the IQ study should not be included because it are only "estimates". The problem there is that EVERY IQ VALUE, no matter how it is determined, is an estimate. It is not a fixed value for each person, but depends highly on how it is measured, when it was measured and even the mood the subject was in. Although calculated in a different way than most people are familiar with, these values are as good as any IQ value. Although I agree some parts of this article need cleaning up, it is not the IQ part I am sorry to say. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats exactly where you and I disagree. What you call an "essay", I regard a scientific study in a peer reviewed journal. Now, although I agree that peer review is not the same as truth, Wikipedia is also not about truth, but about verfiability/attribution/pick your favorite policy. Unless retracted, surpassed by other studies or highly criticized (none of which applies for this particular study) a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal makes a perfect source for Wikipidia, especially when the study was covered by main stream media (as is the case here). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You say it yourself: the quest here is not to "explain truth", but to repeat hard fact. Because of its speculative nature, that "study" is anything but this - and its role here is as a defense for a "Bush isn't so stupid after all" point of view. This article is a witness to how the press treats Bush - not to present "for and against" cases. At best, that study should be cited because it was cited by the press, not cited in itself. THEPROMENADER 07:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, I have no objections to that last compromise (citing press instead of directly citing the study). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual and Psychological... 

message: I can't believe there is no discusssion of the public lies that George Bush has made in speeches and to the press. Particularly for the lead up to the Iraq War and his lies regarding the Plame Affair.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.135.0.6 (talk • contribs) 
: Well, these would have to be shown in an objective point of view - instances seen through the eyes of the media that reported them. I would rather call it "contradictions" than "lies" though. Sign your comments, please. THEPROMENADER 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested to know what these lies are. Could you provide some concrete evidence for us? 2nd Piston Honda 08:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lies?

message: I am restoring the Environment section from that amended by Judgesurreal.  First the good judge placed a tag about a need to expand the section while simultaneously deleting material and sources.  He also said "this is not a forum to educate about bushs misdeeds, its an encyclopedia".  Wrong again (at least on the first part).  The article is exactly about Bush's misdeeds. 69.107.224.129 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting Edit

message: President Bush has recently admitted a "battle with alcohol". I have included this in the "personal behavior" section, above Bushisms. I think I messed up the ref citation, but I really, really tried to do it correctly. If anyone wishes to make the necessary changes to the citation so that it displays correctly, please go ahead. Surely alcoholism is worthy of inclusion under the "personal behavior" heading (especially for the President of the USA), which is why I went ahead and included it without discussion. This might seem presumptuous, but then any arguments for its removal would have to be compelling. 123.200.198.152 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alcoholism

message: The article still suffers from serious problems, including POV and OR, and Undue weight. SpecificallY:
*Nowhere in the article is any specific source for calling the subject "hostile" to the poor indicated, making that section heading both OR and explicit POV. That section also contains reference to "Republicans in general", which is arguably not appropriate for this article, as that claim is, at this point, standard boilerplate for several rather extreme opponents of Republicans. 
*The references to Michael Moore's film also fail to address any of the responses to such criticism, and, in fact, I'm not aware of anywhere where such content exists. References to intellectual capactity ignore published reports that he did better in college than John Kerry did, which are I believe relevant. 
*The article in general seems to be little more than a collection of almost unrelated incidents in which the subject has behaved in a way which others later criticized. I cannot help but think that the entire article needs serious cleanup, or, failing that, if such proves impossible, that it be deleted and the relevant content be merged elsewhere. However, the article as it stands seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and present only a very one-sided description of the events it does cover, with, to the best of my knowledge, no balancing information existing anywhere. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this not just a negative POV fork testing positive on steroids?--98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of template 

message: Most of John Carter's concerns are in a specific section, and the one following. Some explanation of my move follows, as well as responses to John's concerns:
Article exists because it was too extensive a part of George W. Bush, thus a merge would only recreate a problem the article solves. Criticism, by definition, is a point of view; what must be maintained regarding WP:POV is a neutral tone in recording the non-neutral opinions of sources.
As for John's first two bullet points, these should be solved by editing, or at most marking the sections, not the entire article. References to Republicans should indeed be kept in the context of the leadership exercised by Bush over the party and its elected officials and appointees, as perceived by reliably sourced critics. Most references to Republicans are so cited in the article; those that are not should have a "citation needed" attached, or be edited. This goes for any concerns of OR, of course; a blanket template cannot help isolate original research in such a long article.
Third bullet point: "little more than a collection of almost unrelated incidents": All incidents in the article are related in the person of George W. Bush, an individual of considerable notability and influence. Re: WP:INDISCRIMINATE : "our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The actions and behavior of a modern two-term President of the United States is arguably of the highest importance and interest to Wikipedia's users. 
Deletion has failed through two rounds already, and does not need to be revisited. Re: Undue Weight : "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Either the article Criticism of George W. Bush is not comparing conflicting views, only discussing criticism, and/or it represents a substantial majority view. See above comments by ThePromenader at 14 February, esp. where a "Praise of George W. Bush" article is suggested. 
Finally, as I stated before, Wikipedia has dozens of such criticism articles. Do a Search for "Criticism of". Religions and corporations come in first for the most part; Muhammad is the first person whose criticism page turns up, George W. Bush the first living person, followed by Noam Chomsky, Tony Blair, Ghandi, and many others. --Yamara ✉ 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this not just a negative POV fork testing positive on steroids?--98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Template moved to section

message: There is a discussion to remove all "Criticism" articles: . Everyone is welcome to participate.Biophys (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An obvious misrepresentation.  WP:ANI report may be found here.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article may soon be deleted

message: i think, given bush's 83% disapproval rating, there is considerable criticism, and it deserves its own page. incorporating it into the bush page will cause that page to be too large.
Bgborkosky (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, personally, I 100% disagree with you. Keeping this article is an extremely blatant disregard for NPOV. By the way, do you want to know how Bush had approval ratings like that? LIBERAL news stations like MSNBC polled their liberal viewers, and they didn't even touch a person who they thought was even slightly conservative. Obama's approval ratings are dropping as well, just so you know. In my personal opinion, since we are sharing beliefs, is that G.W. Bush was a good President, and a good man. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it should be kept. I think it should be modified to be criticisms of things he did, not to what people perceive his attitude to be (ie. hostility to the poor). There is no way to have a section called Hostility to the Poor and have it keep a NPOV. It should be a section about criticism about his tax cuts. The part about calling the people at the white tie should be removed, and the other criticisms in that section have already been covered in other parts of the article. --Wadeperson (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is justa forum for people who don't agree with the president politically. A sad day for wikipedia, and this is why wikipedia deserves its own criticism.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is extremely sad and shows you show badly slanted the admins really are.  If you don't believe me, ask yourself, where is the "Criticisms of Barack H. Obama" page? MrDestructo (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the exact same that I asked, Destructo. I am getting very fed up with the obviously liberal-leaning way things work around here. I have been fighting it since my first day at Wikipedia. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  keep 

message: The use of "criticism" as title just gives his opponents an advantage, therefore violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.--Amnesico29 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be your suggested rewording for the article title? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a merge listed in the title, and that is the better name.  This article, once relevant information has been captured, should be deleted and salted.  As for criticism pages in general, WP:SOAP is really more the policy that I'd invoke.  Criticism articles are poorly enforced because people like to vent, and even though I have... disagreements with this individual it does not mean that I support having an article that exists solely to give a stage for those who want to magnify his misdeeds.  SDY (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would support merging relevant and NPOV content from this article into the Public perception of George W. Bush article. Cultural and political image of John McCain and Public image of Barack Obama both contain flattering and unflattering views of the men, but they don't fork out negative content and create an entirely separate article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support merging content from here to Public perception of George W. Bush.  We should be able to write a single article about GWB's image without a pov fork. Bonewah (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support a merge and re-write with NPOV in mind.  The current article is a kin to an attack page, which is discouranged in Wikipedia.  The creation of an article entitled "Criticism of Barack Obama" was speedily deleted, for what it's worth.  Newguy34 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I 100% support merge and re-write with emphasis on NPOV. This article is a blatant disregard for NPOV, and if this article is allowed to stand, I will immediately be rounding up a team of conservative Wikipedia editors to write a "Criticism of Barack Hussein Obama" article. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start by outlining what you think the top 5 criticisms of Obama should be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you people want/care about a Barack Obama page, then take it up somewhere actually about Obama and stay on topic here. Bonewah (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support the proposed merger. All "Criticism of..." pages are POV forks resulting from lazy editing or agenda-based editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge, but "Public image" and not "Public perception" seems a more common and appropriate title. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both "Public image" and "Public perception" seem too close to "what people think about" for my tastes.  Id rather see "public reception", but im not in love with that either. Bonewah (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV