Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 50

message: That Signature looks like a 4th grader. Is that really his?
:*Reverted -Susanlesch 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original question was not in regards to the signature currently in the article, which is in fact GWB's signature. The question was referring to :Image:Signaturebush.JPG, which has since been deleted as pure vandalism. auburnpilot talk 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is That Really Bushs Signature?

message: The reference to the BI report as some sort of rebuttal ("But...") to the NIE and as explanation for Bush's position ("Therefore...") is just wrong.  (1) The BI report does not say what the insertion here says it "found".  That is what the Rev. Moon's conservative Wash.Times editorial actually cited here claims is "implicit" in the BI report.  (2) The NIE is much clearer, credible and aimed at a different point.  (3)  The Bush late 2006 position cited came before, not after and in consideration of the BI report.  (4) for all these reasons, its a lame POV effort in my view.-JLSWiki 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: recent Brookings Institute report addition and my deletion

message: shouldnt this page at least mention this somewhere wtih a link to a page, preferably in the criticism section? i mean it was a huge issue, still is, and it centers around him, seeing as how he funded it. and i didnt see anything about it. i personally think it deserves its own section, but it could fit under the critisism part as well.--Late Leo 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   wiretapping program? 

message: I deleted an exerpt about "in 2006 a National Intelligence Estimate (a consensus report of the heads of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies) asserted that the Iraq war had increased Islamic radicalism and worsened the terror threat." from War On Terror section, because information about it is already written in Iraq war section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 February 2007
I'm strongly in favour of including that statement based on the fact that it is exactly the opposite of what President Bush himself claims. This makes it relevant. Wayne 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of my last deletion

message: This article is too long (length and file size). Things taken from other articles (such as early life) can be shortened. Should improve article greatly. ~ UBeR 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced the article to 119 kb, which is still probably too long... Addhoc 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The stinking lead needs to be trimmed. Phoenix2 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs to be shortened

message: Being from Texas, I am disappointed by the lack of information on his early life in the article, which simply states that his family moved to Texas when he was two years old.  Also, it does not include any information on his first venture into Texas politics as a Congressional representative from Texas.  As I recall he was defeated for "not being Texan enough."  I am sorry but I don't have much information on this, but I find it hard to believe he jumped straight from the oil industry into a governership.  I am what you would call "a Texas Liberal" -- with deep roots -- and although Texas has always been a conservative state, we have in the past elected democratic governers, most notablely Anne Richards.  However, through the efforts of Carl Rove, Tom Delay, and others the political liberal voice in Texas has been silenced.  As i live abroad, I have found that the popular misconception is that George Bush is from Texas, which is untrue.  Coming from an elitist background in New England and attending prep-school as well as university in the Ivy league, it is more than questionable that our president is "Texan."  In fact, the information I have on the Bush family's ties to Texas is more reminiscent of the "carpet baggers" durning the time of Southern Reconstruction than the current display of  genuine "Texan" values.  An apt saying for this is "just because you own a ranch, doesn't make you a cowboy."  I would appreciate a more thorough account on his family's history in Texas.85.50.32.205 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Bush Texan? 

message: No mention of his likeness to a Chimpanzee can be found in the article. This has been on TV and newspaper with sufficient illustrations to fortify the fact. In my knowledge no other world leader has had that privilege so far (in history!), so it surely must be mentioned. Lets not let down his momma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.245.134 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Leaders that Look Like Primates El hombre de haha 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that someone has deleted that page which is disappointing.  This article is very un-NPOV.  The whole world knows what an idiot this man is but the text hardly acknowledges this at all. Xanucia 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chimpanzee 

message: This article, and the article Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration makes no mention of the major overhaul to the bankruptcy law that was passed early in Bush's presidency.  I think this is a serious omission--this legislation is fairly significant; I'd be grateful if anyone wants to take the time to research and add this material.  I may do it myself if I get around to it, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the topic and it might be easier for someone with more expertise to do it.  Cazort 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a bankruptcy related article should handle this Ecostaz 01:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankruptcy legislation 

message: This quote from Bush has gotten a lot of play in the blogosphere recently. Since it's been published in a fairly reputable source (Haaretz ) it might be a good idea to include it and the surrounding controversy here. 76.97.207.71 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder Saddam was hiding in the spider hole. Anyway, maybe Bush thought Osama was hiding in there and that way he could "smoke 'im out". Gzuckier 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "I will screw him in the ass!"

message: Doesn't George Bush speak other languages?  I'm pretty certain that he speaks Spanish... Whatever. Captain Red Hook 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He knows just enough Spanish for him to attempt to speak it on occasion, as do many people from the Southwest US... and he's also fairly well known for sounding like an idiot when he speaks Spanish.  I'm not convinced he speaks any language well, but it seems like he would have to pass college level courses in some language in order to have graduated. It wouldn't be completely out of line to say he speaks Spanish, though, any more than it would be to say he speaks English, since he seems to have difficulty with both languages sometimes.  It may be related to his noted "decline in sentence-by-sentence speaking ability" which at least one doctor has said is indicative of cognitive impairment, so maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, none of us are getting younger. User:Pedant 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Supposedly, you can hear his Spanish for yourself: "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010505.ram".  (He gave a speech for Cinco de Maio, 2001, in English and Spanish.)  Sadly, I'm at work, and I cannot confirm the link. Chip Unicorn 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: Is this new section needed or even appropriate? A quote section seems to have the same drawbacks as a trivia section; neither are manageable and if the quote/trivia isn't important enough for inclusion in a paragraph, it isn't likely important enough to be mentioned anywhere. As it stands, there is only one quote which is referenced by a youtube video. Seems like something that should just be cut from the already long article. auburnpilot talk 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. Addhoc 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, although I do believe Bush is not a very good president, he should not be subjected to any sort of prejudice in quotes not afforded to anyone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrroboto56 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes section?

message: I believe that there needs to be some mention from a NPOV that Bush was a cheerleader at both Andover and Yale.4.88.57.102 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad. You already had me picturing him in a skirt with pompoms... --Michael riber jorgensen 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Andover, Yale Cheerleader

message: There needs to be a link back to former Bush roommate at Yale and U.S. Polish Ambassador Victor Ashe.4.88.57.102 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is relevant how?  ViriiK 10:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition Needed To Also See

message: I know this has been discussed before, but this article has reached the breaking point in terms of length. It is now over 120 kilobytes long. As this is likely the most contentious article, I wanted to bring this here before I started chopping this article and merging some content in already established daughter articles. The Childhood to mid-life and Foreign policy sections seems to be the longest and all have pre-existing daughter articles; might be the place to start. All the other sections seem to be fairly succinct and to the point. Suggestions? auburnpilot talk 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortening the Iraq War section seems to me to be the most obvious remedy, that and the early life section.  I've shortening the bit about global warming (though I do plan on adding some other material to the section later).--Mbc362 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a few people have already started; looks good so far. I just removed the "speach mishaps" section as basically irrelevant. auburnpilot talk 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length - critical

message: There's no mention of GWB's surprise neck rub of Angela Merkel.  I think there should be.  Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.209.16.171 (talk • contribs).
:There's no need for it to be included. The article is long enough as it is, it's impractical to include every piece of information relating to someone as high-profile as Bush is. On the other hand, an article called Controversy realting to George W Bush would be the longest article in wiki! Naysie 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Bush Gropes German Chancellor at G-8 Summit' 

message: At this date, the article introduces the president with how his name is played out in southern drawl.  Is it not inappropriate to state this in his encyclopedic general introduction ?  Should it not be, if at all, allocated to a subheading such as G.W.B. Trivia, much further down in the article ? --Free4It 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One can write an engaging and interesting article based purely on facts without resorting to emotion.  I don't think that's really the issue here, though.  GWB's nickname is of considerably less importance than the rest of the top material for the article (it should summarize the high points, with the more minor details appearing below the ToC).  A more appropriate place to put it would be in the section describing the part of his life when the moniker was first commonly used, if it is possible to determine when that was.  --DachannienTalkContrib 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "One can write an engaging and interesting article based purely on facts without resorting to emotion". Hmm...I'd like to see you try. Apparently Bush-supporters find this nickname endearing, and opponents find it comical. Great, so everyone is happy... :o) --Michael riber jorgensen 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Dubya Bush 

message: ===George W. Bush===
:result:Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn)
This article was passed as a GA today, but I have major reservations with an (almost permanently) semi-protected article that is still hammered with vandalism passing GAC, as I don't see how it meets the "Stable" criteria.  --PresN 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a contributor to that article and one who frequently reverts vandalism on it, I share your reservations.  I am puzzled as to why the article was promoted to GA status given its inherent instability.  That the article is continuously semi-protected seems to be bona fide evidence of instability.  --ElKevbo 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about the same article?  --ElKevbo 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just see lots of vandalism, nothing like content instability. I think this should be Kept unless someone spots some other problem, though I do think this article could use summary style a bit more effectively in many sections to shorten them. Homestarmy 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree that this article is a Good Article.  I hope that it will become one at some point but it's not very well-written and is unstable, IMHO.  --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. No one should take it personally that this is an unstable article since this is essentially a current event and will constantly change over time. I can't wait until 2009-2010 when a degree of stability is assured and we can decide conclusively what the structure will be. It will one day be an excellent article in every way despite the controversial nature of its subject. ~ Rollo44 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of the GAR 

message: :result:Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn)
This article was passed as a GA today, but I have major reservations with an (almost permanently) semi-protected article that is still hammered with vandalism passing GAC, as I don't see how it meets the "Stable" criteria.  --PresN 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a contributor to that article and one who frequently reverts vandalism on it, I share your reservations.  I am puzzled as to why the article was promoted to GA status given its inherent instability.  That the article is continuously semi-protected seems to be bona fide evidence of instability.  --ElKevbo 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about the same article?  --ElKevbo 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just see lots of vandalism, nothing like content instability. I think this should be Kept unless someone spots some other problem, though I do think this article could use summary style a bit more effectively in many sections to shorten them. Homestarmy 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree that this article is a Good Article.  I hope that it will become one at some point but it's not very well-written and is unstable, IMHO.  --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. No one should take it personally that this is an unstable article since this is essentially a current event and will constantly change over time. I can't wait until 2009-2010 when a degree of stability is assured and we can decide conclusively what the structure will be. It will one day be an excellent article in every way despite the controversial nature of its subject. ~ Rollo44 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[George W. Bush]]

message: My addition of a Speech Mishap topic to my knowledge does not go against any policies(Including the WP:NOT, and WP:BLP). It is a comedic addition to the page and the world needs humor in all aspects of life, even politics. The quotes given by bush are not offensive as they are stated as being mishaps by George W. Bush.
I am petitioning here to document this topic because it is somthing people like to read about. It is in no way a negative attribute to the page for it is positive humor.Soulofdragon 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speech mishaps

message: Libby was convicted 6 March 2007 on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying during the leak investigation. Why is there no mention of the Plame affair in this article? James S. 23:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added James S. 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree something should be added about Libby since the scandal is relevant and of immense interest to the public at the moment. I'm going to add a mention in the 2004 cabinet section. darksmiles22 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, try to get your facts straight before you put it in the article again, please. He wasn't in any way associated with Bush's cabinet; and he wasn't assistant to the President. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On the Lewis Libby wikiarticle he is mentioned as resigning from his position as assistant to the president. I just assumed, sorry; but still he should be mentioned somewhere in this article given his relevance to the Bush presidency. Even though he wasn't appointed by Bush he was pressured to resign and Andrew Card's resignation is in the appointments section so i figured it was ok for Libby's resignation to be put there too. darksmiles22 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis 'Scooter' Libby convicted 

message: In the Foreign Policy section there is a whole subheading on North Korea but nothing on Iran. Surely Iran has played as big a role in the president's foreign policy as North Korea-although admittedly less than Afghanistan and Iraq-and deserves as much mention. There has been a lot of discussion over excessive length, though, so i am unsure of whether to add something on Iran or delete the part about North Korea. Does anyone have any thoughts?darksmiles22 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran and Korea 

message: Could someone help me fix the Health And Human Services Secretary? Therequiembellishere 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet

message: Somebody has nominated to incorporate the text of George W. Bush's pretzel into this article, a move I feel would be unwise.  While it is an interesting bit of historical trivia, much like Jimmy Carter's rabbit, it does not deserve a great deal of mention (if any) in a serious encyclopaedia article dealing with the President of the United States - it is far better as it stands now, as a simple "See also" link. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I'm against it hence why I removed the see also link.  You can make a page regarding "silly incidents" of Presidencies or what not but not in this biography.  It's not a helpful contribution to this biography whatsoever.  You can make a small mention of it because of the fact we've had issues w/ See Also.  For example suggestions for impeachment of George W. Bush.  Inserting it now opens the flood gate so we have to keep it to a minimum.  ViriiK 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue there is some merit to mention it either as a see also, or preferbaly as one line somewhere in the article, it's noteable enough IMHO as it continues to be a significant source of jokes etc about Bush. A reader who hasn't heard of the incident may come to this article trying to find out but will come away none the wiser. Nil Einne 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretzel incident

message: is this article going to be permanently protected? Is this really necessary how much vandalism occurs when few times protection is not on?  How do we give people a chance when protection is never taken off? Maybe we can take the protection off, and have a banner saying, high vandalism target, check history to see if vandalism occured. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  permanent protection? 

message: Can we make a separate list of the supporters of Bush active on this page, so its easier to recognise them, although some of them use colors, I can see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.245.134 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent Supporters of Bush 

message: While President Clinton was busy being finacially responsible and cutting the national debt by unprecedented amounts, there was very little resistance to going full steam ahead on impeachment proceedings against him. Now that we are starting the 5th year of the costliest war on record, we should have more than enough ammunition to impeach the man who started it on a hunch. This is an open invitation to fellow wikis to please explain to me why this has not yet happened.
139.68.134.1 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please realise this is not a forum. Thank you.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The section needs to be rewritten as a summary of the main article, not just a list of unconnected facts.  Sentences such as "Others have cited additonal things" needs to be avoided as it doesn't actually give any new information, just that some people (not specified) think something else (again, not specified).  Lastly, to be truely NPOV, the section also needs to briefly discuss opposition to his possible impeachment.-- Mbc362 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no impeachment proceedings? 

message: Boy, discussing this will sure be fun, but my Doctor has recommended I not slam my head into any brick walls for a while so I'll bite. This is a fringe movement which yes, has been mentioned a few times in the print... but the only motivation to include this in the main article on GWB is if you just want to include as much negative stuff as possible. Small town meetings in vermont? A poll in 2005 by a company that doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article? A Keith Olberman blurb? This is fringe stuff... you could find more stuff in print about people who've threatened to kill GWB or want to marry him or any number of such nonsense. There's no reason to include it in the top level article except because it looks bad for Bush. I like to think Wikipedia articles aren't about that kind of stuff... --W.marsh 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is already an article Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Given that there haven't been any attempts by the Congress to impeach Bush, I think simply linking to the article is plenty here. Polls or individuals that "call for" impeachment are pretty much a non-issue, people should spend their effort in this article on making the real and specific criticisms of Bush clear. Cogswobble 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  impeachment 

message: I don't think this fact is relevant for the article.  Bush was an owner of the Texas Rangers, not the general manager of the team.  The team received Harold Baines and a few other players in exchange for Sosa, and according to this article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_9_61/ai_90359271 , the trade where the Rangers acquired first baseman Rafael Palmiero during the previous season set the stage for the Sosa trade.  Although the media and political opponents portrayed trading Sosa as a blunder during the 2000 election campaign, from a sports perspective it wasn't a bad deal when the whole situation is considered.  The characterization is that the Rangers, under Bush's minority owner leadership, gave away one of the "all-time greats" for nothing.  Sosa's reputation during the 2000 election campaign was higher than ever as he was still benefitting from the wave of attention following the 1998 home run race.  After the subsequent steroid scandal, and his quick demise in playing ability over the last few years, I think his overall historic reputation is not what the sports world thought it would be in 2000.  I would recommend either removing this line from the text as irrelevant to Bush's ownership of the team, or add in the fact that the trade was for Harold Baines, another solid baseball player, several other role players, and had significant salary implications. 71.244.55.228 06:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think the sports perspective of the Sosa trade matters much here. The Sosa deal is probably the only detail (if any) that most people know about Bush's tenure with the Rangers, and it was a (minor) issue during the campaign. It still might not merit inclusion, just keep in mind that the sporting aspect of the deal isn't really important. Also, I think the current wording is pretty neutral, and doesn't imply that the deal was a blunder. Cogswobble 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trading Sammy Sosa 

message: I have just finished reading this page, and I have to say honestly its the most misleading wikipedia article I've ever read, I'm sure that Americans who voted for him would not have the same issues with this article as I... Is it possible for someone to edit the article more realisticly, as people in Australia dont know him as this page describes him... and i'm sure a lot of Europe and the middle east would agree. examples: The fallout of Hurricane Katrina, romours behind the September 11 attacks (loose change (second edition)), or the voting inconsitancies in the 2000 election as detailed on the Michael Moore film 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.
If this is a matter of fact and notablilty, then perhaps some mention should be made of his family and the influential roles that they haved played in his career, as well as the complete story about the war in Iraq. I dont know if Americans are aware of his certainty that Irag had chemical weapons... but i am. Surely there must be a way to accurately describe this person without getting nasty or making it sound like he's an angel from the stars. Wiki ian 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, Wiki ian, is that if we totally covered everything about him in this article, it would be about five thousand miles long. There are countless branch articles that you can look at for more info. As for the other thing, I think perhaps the reason you believe people in Australia don't know him as this page describes him is that... people in Australia don't really know him. =/ That's kind of why you read encyclopedia articles... it's to learn about people, find out things you didn't know (e.g., there's a whole heck of a lot more to Bush than the Iraq War and 9/11). Just my thoughts. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect Matt, the news coverage in Australia covers more on President bush than you think. As a very unpopular American President (to the world), just about every botch-up he makes is put on our news channels. It is rumored (with some of his family connections) that he has partially censored American TV. Our own news coverage and a current affairs programs tell us we know more about Bush and the war in Iraq than Americans do, due to the control of information and propoganda over there. Wiki ian 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be absurd. The American media is not censored and most certainly not by Bush. Watch so much as 30 minutes of it and you'd know that Bush has absolutely zero control over what is said about him. As to this article, the last thing I'd say is that it slants in Bush's favor. A lot of work has gone into creating a neutral article and I believe it has been achieved. Even the criticism sections stay on point without straying from the facts. Let's also not forget this is supposed to be a biography, not an in depth analysis of every drop of spit that falls from his mouth. auburnpilot talk 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you telling me the news in America has told you every time one of the 3000 service peronsel has been killed in Iraq? As i've heard the bush administration is coaching the news networks over there to keep that to a minimum. So surely if they're doing this much, there's more being done behind the scenes. Not absurd, firghtfully true. Wiki ian 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes we are told every time a soldier dies in Iraq.  We are given daily reports of any bombings/shootings including the number of soldiers killed or wounded as well as the number of civilians killed or wounded.  As you're obviously not familiar with our media, don't go around making assumptions that its propaganda.  Bush has whined about the so called "bias" of the US media, but other than banning them from photographing the soldier's coffins he can't do much about it.--Mbc362 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible bias

message: The transition between the "Governor of Texas" and "2000 Presidential Election" sections of this article is rather abrupt, and I don't think it flows very well. 
--Deputydog23 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  awkward transition 

message: Does the fact they caught the guy behind 9/11 belong here? Under the 9/11 section maybe? With much Spite & Malice 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11

message: can i change his name —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girlfromthebigo (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Deskana (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can i  

message: I contest the line in the first paragraph that says Bush's term is scheduled to end on 20 January, 2009. This is obvious already, and doesn't warrant inclusion on this page. It is extremely leftist to have this on here because it makes it sound like Wikipedians can't wait to have Bush out of the White House. In essence, I think it is a violation of NPOV. It would be neutral if we didn't include it at all. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CPRdave (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any president's page would have when they took and left office.  Bush will leave office in January of 2009.  When he leaves office it will say he served from 2000 to 2009.  It's not POV.  --PTR 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is left from the first paragraph. 

message: The article says that George Bush was elected president in 2000. He was acctually appointed president. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmjnyc (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although your point of view is valid (see United States presidential election, 2000 Florida results), he was officially declared the winner of election, hence (legally) he was elected. Under WP:NPOV, we have to cover the verifiable legal facts. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: The 2nd paragraph needs to be edited. Somebody has inserted vandalized text: "George likes moonlight walks on the southern beaches of Iraq. He is currently cheating on his wife with an Iraqi woman names Irani. There third child is expected to be born on july 5 2007. He is a bad president." ZuG 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've moved your post down here, as new threads are supposed to go at the bottom of a page. As you can see here, the vandalism has already been reverted. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Edit Request

message: I found an article about George Bush criticisms by the American Bar Association. It's here if you want to read it.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more info about criticisms