Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 53

message: That is something that I hope people will keep in mind when editing this article in the future as well as the aticles of future presidents.  Too much unjust criticism gives the person you are talking about a free hand to do anything.  For some reason, everyone who hates President Bush wants to flock to this article and find a way to weasle bad stuff into it.  Ok, it's not like I don't know why but they need to stop even it for their own good.  The more hysterical criticism of the President they try to put on this site and others just give the President permission to do anything he wants.  It works like this, if you call someone the anti-christ for parting his hair on the wrong side you lose all credibility.  If you criticize someone even when they do the right thing, you lose all credibility.  Thus, then the President really does do something that is worthy of criticism and legitimate people want to put that up it is seen by others as more of the same crazy talk as before and no one takes it seriously.  The recession in the economy that hit in 2001 was predicted 2 years in advance.  To say that that recession was the President's fault (either Clinton or Bush) is ignorance of how markets work.  President Bush was being blamed for the recession before he even took office.  Some people actually believed as they didn't know any better but what is more probable is that the people saying this had a 'need' to believe it.  They wanted to believe it and start blaming every problem in the world on President Bush and so they did even though they knew better.  You can usually tell those people because they refuse to say 'President' Bush and always refer to him as 'Mr.' Bush which is not his title as long as he holds that office.  Now we have a situation wherein so much garbage has been laid at the President's feet that he isn't listening anymore because he doesn't think anyone is going to talk to him in good faith.  He thinks everyone just wants to catch him saying something wrong to lay even more stuff at his blame.  
The reason that all of this affects the article (besides how our everyday lives are being manipulated by the Feds) is that now legitimate people who have legitimate critical evidence to call the President on feel that they can't lest they be grouped together with the  same crowd of people that call President Bush the worst president ever because he owns a dog.  Some of us have real issues that we want to see incorporated in a fair article but are drowned out by people that think the U.S. invades Iraq to steal oil (which if true it means that it is the most expensive heist in history).  I am asking PLEASE eveyone, stay in reality and keep the article fair if for no other reason then so that the real life arguments can stand on their merrits.  If you really think that President Bush is such a bad president then you shouldn't need to put crazy stuff up here as the truth would be bad enough.  
The Hurricane Katrina section needs work and a new section about the recent immigration law that tries to enforce 'English Only' onto the incoming population should be created and done factually and fairly.  It should be no surprise I don't like the new law as it increases the disadvantage that Louisiana has to the other Anglophone states but on Wikipedia we need to be factual.  If we aren't factual then we might as well not even have the thing up.--Billiot 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new law wants English only? can you give me a URL? 'Too much unjust criticism' where do you see that in this article. I think the article is too pro-Bush. Xavier cougat 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "They also must show they are trying to learn English..."
I think this is pretty telling and I am in the process of getting a copy of the actual law from a lawmaker so that it can be reviewed.  America has had a very long history of Anglophones forcing their language on other people and this law is just another example of Louisiana being at a severe disadvantage to the Anglophone, common law states.  Why isn't there a section to allow Francophones into Louisiana?  That is my question that no one wants to answer or can't with a straght face.--Billiot 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points to consider

message: I think the President would be proud to mention this new book by daughter Jenna Bush - 
Ana's Story:  A Journey of Hope  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.77.150 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that he would, but I don't think that's a good reason for inclusion. Why don't you stop over by Jenna_Bush#Bibliography and improve that article a bit? I think the book section could use some TLC. Epthorn 12:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughter Jenna Bush's New Book

message: The section on the 2000 election that reads, "On election day, November 7, 2000 ... 537 votes out of 6 million cast, making it the 30th state he carried."
Suggest this be removed from George W Bush page and put on 2000 Presidential Election page and the Bush v Gore supreme court case page. The details are mind-numbingly long for what is supposed to be a biographical page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granthursin  (talk • contribs) 
:I removed it a little. The Evil Spartan 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a pretty significant fact for the lead. I propose its reinclusion. --John 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it already mentions that he was part of a controversial election wher he won the electoral vote but not the popular vote. Keep in mind, this is a biography, not an article about his presidency. I would say it's worthy of inclusion, except the wikilink already links to the information and someone can look it up. The fact is, the article already reads too much like we're trying to cram 800000 bits of information into as few words as possible; I'd prefer leave it out. The Evil Spartan 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, it's extensively mentioned elsewhere in the article. The Evil Spartan 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If that were true, we'd be happy to mention such a fact. However, Bush was not appointed by the Supreme Court and was in fact elected through the "regular election process". - auburnpilot talk 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The other day I changed it from "appointed" to "deemed to have won the presidency," and someone changed it back.  Today I've changed it from "appointed president" to "became president," in an attempt to make it neutral and non-controversial.  Even though I loathe Bush, it pays to be accurate.Tinmanic 15:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 election 

message: Can someone please change the wording on the main page from "pleaded guilty" to "plead guilty"
Context - "He pleaded guilty, was fined $150, and had his driver's license suspended until 1978 in Maine."
:Pleaded guilty is correctly English. Cheers Nil Einne 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. It may be good English, but it sounds just as awkward as the phrase "is correctly English" (which, on the other hand, is not) :P The Evil Spartan 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that "pleaded" is the most common form in BE as well as in AE generally, but in this specific phrase American media "almost always uses pled" . This form (whether spelled with or without an a) may have been considered inferior in the past, but if it's true that American media almost always uses that form, then perhaps we should use it too, when writing in AE about American legal pleas? -- Jao 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, there are a considerable amount of such words, where the word falls out of usage in GB, and as such, it comes to be seen as "incorrect" by some of the language geeks (often, a lower class usage is considered incorrect in a language, while the upper class is kosher; the British bourgeoisie traditionally saw the Americans as lower class). See this article on the word loan for clarification. The Evil Spartan 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pled or pleaded guilty sound fine to me. Plead guilty does not. But I can't speak for American English. If Pled guilty is preferred in American English then go for it. If plead guilty is preferred in American English then go for it too although that sounds wrong to me. Are you sure about the pled preference tho? While I don't particularly like Google searches since they tend to over-emphasise the importance of AE amongst other things (which obviously isn't an issue in this case), "pleaded guilty" gets more results and the first page are all American sources. Does it depend on context? E.g. someone pleaded guilty in a court case yesterday but pled guilty in this old court case? Nil Einne 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for that but in my defence I was rather tired when I wrote that :-P Nil Einne 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have just left it. However, someone already decided to revert it as subtle vandalism ;) The Evil Spartan 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pleaded guilty

message: It seems unjustifiably omissive that not a single mention of fascism or authoritarianism is included in an article about a man large segments of America and the world consider its modern epitome.  It's also a little peculiar that there's no summary under the criticism subheading, but just an immediate link to a separate page that itself contains no mention of fascism or authoritarianism.  Is it our job to legitimize this man, or to post an unbiased NPOV article about him?  Wercloud 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than what "large segments of America and the world consider its modern epitome" what is the evidence for this? I live in America and what George Bush has brought is low taxes and security, we still enjoy freedoms that most of the world doesn't so how is there at all any merit to the accusations you are making? --Southern Texas 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's please work to keep our personal politics to a minimum in this discussion.  --ElKevbo 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with ElKevbo - this should be about neutral presentation of facts, not personal politics.  Although specific cites will have to wait until tomorrow, I refer to the overwhelming global consensus that George W. Bush is a military aggressor and pervasive human rights abuser; and also the significant proportion of Americans who feel that his practice of torture, warrantless search and seizure, and routine secrecy in all aspects of government resemble at least the mentality and certain tactics of fascism and authoritarianism.  Whether his supporters are in favor of those behaviors is obviously not germane to a discussion of the criticism subheading, either in the main article or extension page, but ignoring these pervasive criticisms would be an invalid omission.  Wercloud 05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's funny how you complain about soapboxing when you are the only one to soapbox on this topic Nil Einne 11:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can cite a few reliable sources supporting your assertions then it might be worth including a brief sentence in this article.  Please keep in mind that this is a very busy article so we must be very judicious with what we choose to include or exclude.  That is why there are so many separate articles like the criticism article you mentioned; we've had to move information into other articles to keep the length of this one manageable.  --ElKevbo 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand that it's a very big article to maintain.  For this page specifically, all I'm looking for is a summary under the criticism heading that refers specifically to these aspects, and then I'll move on to the criticism page itself.  The best sources in general would be Hirsh's New Yorker articles, although I won't have much problem finding additional credible sources -- the documentation on this subject is ubiquitous, and I'll set about it tomorrow.  Wercloud 05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed so if it's a fact that many people consider him a fascist or authoritary then we should present that Nil Einne 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a collection of opinions without basis.--Southern Texas 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wercloud, please read up on our WP:NPOV policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to give their personal opinion. Would you support naming Hillary Clinton a communist? Probably not - which would show that this is a point of view, not a fact. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia page; for a blog, perhaps, but not for an encyclopedia. The Evil Spartan 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable sources are provided that indicate Hillary Clinton being a communist is a common opinion then it should be mentioned in that article. However that should be discussed there not here Nil Einne 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is saying wikipedia is a collection of opinions without basis. However as ElKevbo has stated, if and when a number of reliable sources are found which support Werclouds assertations then it should be included as there is basis. Whether or not you agree with those opinions is irrelevant, all we would be saying is people have these opinions. This is not soapboxing. Werboat didn't come here and say that Bush is a fascist and authorian. All he or she said was that it's a common opinion which should be included in the article. However no reliable sources have been provided yet but this doesn't make it soapboxing. All that I said is that there's nothing intrinsincly wrong with included well sourced opinions of Bush, unlike 67 seems to think. Indeed you are the only one so far who has soapboxed on this thread since you are the only one who has offered personal opinions of Bush which is the epitome of soapboxing In any case, it seems pretty pointless to debate this further since no reliable sources have been presented as yet. This doesn't change the fact that if reliable sources are found it would have to be considered. Nil Einne 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that I entirely disagree with you that it should be even included if there are reliable sources. I have seen way too much POV pushing and the like under the guise that "reliable sources" can be attributed to them. But Wikipedia has a duty to be neutral, even if there are "reliable sources" to the non-neutral statement. Just because a fringe group of people calls someone a bad name, it doesn't mean that it should be included in the article, even if there are sources for it. See Anti-Iranian sentiment for a great example of this concept gone amock. I'm sorry, WP:NPOV and WP:RS shouldn't be exclusive pillars. I will remove any mention I see of this from the article if I see it. The Evil Spartan 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that Bush has received a fair amount of criticism for skirting the constitution (such as flagrant use of presidential signing statements, warrantless NSA wiretapping, and general withholding of information from the public, etc.) and has been accused of acting in an authoritarian manner (with different wording though) by constitutional scholars, etc.  With proper sourcing and phrasing I believe it would acceptable to mention this.  To actually claim he is fascist or authoritarian would obviously be POV, and I do believe that claiming large segments of America and the world consider Bush to be the modern epitome of fascism/authoritarianism is factually incorrect, very minor segments of the world consider him to actually be fascist/authoritarian.--Rise Above the Vile 20:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hogwash.  One could likely find reliable sources that "many people hold the opinion that..." or similar sentiments.  You've either misunderstood or are mischaracterizing the discussion.  --ElKevbo 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hogwash? "One could likely find reliable sources that "many people hold the opinion that... or similar sentiments."  See the word "opinion" in the line I just quoted from you?  Opinions don't belong here.  Opinion polls are not reliable and very fluid so they don't belong and wouldn't work as a source.  Some writer's opinion from some newspaper belong here either.  I guarantee you if you find a source that purports to show that many people hold the opinion that Bush is a fascist I could find just as reliable of a source that says the complete opposite.  You know why?  Opinion polls are not reliable sources of info.  Anybody can make a poll have any result they want with careful wording of the questions, the demographic they choose to poll, and the size of the poll.  I'm pretty sure you're aware that polls are manipulated to meet the needs of the person that requested the poll.  Statistics like that are just silly.  Give me enough time and I can use polls and statistics to "prove" that global warming is caused by the decline in pirates sailing the seas.  That's precisely why the type of info you you claim belongs here doesn't. Elhector 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect you'll be removing the polling data from this article and all other opinions, even those held by "some writer[s]...from some newspaper", right?  Please don't confuse "documenting a notable opinion" with "advocating a position".  --
ElKevbo 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I just read the entire executive order and I don't see anything in there about outlawing protests against the war.  Can you cite the part of the order that you think outlaws protests?  It looks like the order was signed in July but I just drove past a large group of war protesters in my area yesterday and they weren't being arrested or anything.  As a matter of fact the police were there making sure they had a safe place to protest and that they weren't harrased by anybody who didn't appreciate the protest.  If this order bans Iraq war protests shouldn't these people have been rounded up by the black vans and black helicopters? Elhector 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fascism, Authoritarianism

message: Per WP:SUMMARY and the Manual of Style, the "Cabinet appointments" and "Domestic policy" sections need at least two sentences of text.  Currently they just have see-main links. ←BenB4 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero-paragraph sections 

message: Proposing a reference to GWB's possible use of cocaine, or at least a topic on the accusations of such?  
see: Hatfield's 'Fortunate Son'[]
If there is an inclusion of Bill Clinton's 'I didn't inhale' on his page, shouldn't this topic be covered for Bush as well?  24.5.74.180 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were reliable, a number of major publications such as the WaPo, NY Times, AP and Reuters would have covered it as a major news story.  'Fortunate Son' alone would be more of a red flag, than a reliable source.   For comparison, Clinton's inhaling or lack there of received much media attention and is reliably sourced through many mainstream publications.--Tbeatty 07:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do remember this being mentioned in the media a good bit. However, the sources were not good, and GWB denied it, thus giving a possible WP:BLP issue. I'm not sure, given the amount of media attention, compared to the attention about the inhaled comment, that it's worth inclusion. But that's just my opinion. The Evil Spartan 
Just hold on a minute - I recall him denying he had used since 1974, which is not the same thing.
02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that the standard of impartiality in the media is one that should be emulated in a situation like this.  The media is predisposed to avoid reporting things so biased as an accusation of a politician of drug use, even if that accusation might have some merit.  However, as this is a page singly devoted to information and informing readers, some mention of the possibility should be made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.190.232 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocaine Use or allegations of use 

message: Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 as a result of the Florida outcome. However, he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes[48] making him the first president elected without at least a plurality of the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison in 1888.[49][50]
What about the 1992 and 1996 elections?  Bill Clinton did not receive a plurality of the vote either time.  He had the most votes out of the three main candidates, but received less than 50% of the popular vote both times.  
69.149.39.142 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing plurality with majority - plurality simply means they got more votes than any other candidate, not that they had at least 50% of the vote.--Rise Above the Vile 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plurality 

message: Would someone kindly remove the line "Among presidential scholars, he is considered one of the worst U.S. presidents to hold the office" from the intro. It may well be true in the future, but seeing as his term isn't even over, it's mildly POV. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.175.36 (talk) 10:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:Oh dear me. How did that sneak in there? The Evil Spartan 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another nuclear baguette 

message: The latest round of vandalism to this article seems particularly difficult to undo. Immediately after President Bush's full name (the first words of the article) and before his birthdate is written (a.k.a. The Devil) I have been unable to revert it like the otehr articles, and even trying to delete the portion manually is unsuccessful, as the vandalism does not show on the edit page. But I've refreshed with different browsers, and the slight against him is visible. Is this due to the protected status, or just a clever method of vandalism? Yookaloco 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was still seeing it as well, but purged the page's cache and it appears to have vanished. - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent Vandalism (AKA: The Devil) 

message: "At the beginning of his first term, Bush was regarded by some as lacking legitimacy due to his narrow victory in Florida and the attendant controversy surrounding his overall victory, which included accusations of vote suppression and tampering."  Isn't this by definition weasel-wording, and therefore, inappropriate? CBoz 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sentence had served as a general introduction and summary of the section and was followed by more detailed discussion with citations then it wouldn't bother me.  But I don't see those topics discussed in that section or those claims substantiated.  I've removed the sentence.  If I've done so in error (perhaps the citations and such are there but I missed them), please revert and discuss!  --ElKevbo 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic perceptions opening? 

message: Since the article makes note of the president's approval rating in the opening segment, shouldn't it be kept up to date instead of referring to a single polling that is more than a month old?  A site like this: "http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm" keeps track of the more recent polls tracking the president's approval and disapproval ratings, so shouldn't the article be updated to reflect the most recent data available?  Just wondering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 (talk) 21:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
:The approval ratings listed in the lead are describing the highs and lows of his presidency - not what they are currently at; I've tried to make it more clear.  His current approval rating is listed under domestic perceptions; I've gone ahead and updated it.  I also made the change to Michael D. Brown's description in the Katrina section that you suggested.  --Rise Above the Vile 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush: Job Ratings 

message: Why is the birthplace listed as New Haven, US in the summary/stats box under his picture?  It should be New Haven, CT in order to be consistent with all the other presidents pages.  This could be misleading to readers who are not aware of the state in which New Haven is located.  This inaccuracy is all the more suspicious in light of the image that GW Bush portrays (i.e. that he is "from" Texas, and distances himself from New England)
75.7.11.47 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he moved to Texas when he was 2 and, outside of his schooling, he's lived there ever since, so I don't know how much more "from" Texas he needs to be.  On the other hand, I agree that all other articles on US presidents list city and state and so I have changed this one to mirror that tendency. Lordjeff06 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace? 

message: Overall this is really actually pretty darn good, this is the first time I've read it. I did note one error, in the Domestic perceptions section, there is a line:
"Many Republicans began criticizing Bush on his policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Territories.[162]"
The USA Today article referenced only lists two Republican representatives, and uses the term "some" rather than "many" in describing the opposition. Possibly that should be updated here, or more references to additional representative comments should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmathies (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I've changed it to "some republican leaders," thanks for the input!--Rise Above The Vile 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edit - Some vs. Many

message: There is an Australian student strike campaign known as "Walkout against George W. Bush" (WAG) going on to protest about George Bush coming to Australia for the Asia Pacific forum on Economic Cooperation. I think this should be added to the article under the Criticism section. Do you agree? --AAA! (AAAA) 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nothing new, or particularly notable. We might as well just say "most hated person on the planet" and sum it up with the one sentence --lucid 07:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. There have been more protests against George Bush than I could count on both hands and feet several times over. Seems to be a pasttime among some people. The Evil Spartan 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walkout against George W. Bush 

message: A Question
I have read that President Bush suffers from Dyslexia. (I apologise if this has been brought up before). Is this True? Incorrect? Or a Stupid Joke?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.132.21 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - it appears it was an unsubstantiated rumor started by a magazine. 64.178.102.151 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the late Molly Ivins (who went to high school with GWB), his mom was working with him on his reading using flash-cards well into his sophomore year. There has been talk that he is dyslexic for quite some time. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexia? 

message: ...he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard... 
not
...he was discharged for the Texas Air National Guard...
24.22.214.91 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I am removing these flags from the infobox. If anyone can come up with an encyclopedic reason to restore them, here would be the place to do it. --John 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Au revoir. The flags are completely unnecessary and clog up the page. The Evil Spartan 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State flags 

message: This is the last sentence at the end of the fourth paragraph. Am I the only one who thinks this is a non-sequitur? MessedRocker (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviwing the articles on the last 2 presidents... it does appear very out of place.  If we are going to list the approval ratings of congress(which I don't see as necessary in the first place) we should also list the prior republican controled congress.  They were voted out so I'd have to check to see how truly bad their ratings were.  The thought behind the edit was general disatisfication of the goverment, if so we should include the Katrina disaster, and the loss of many of the higher level members of the justice department, the war protests, the morgage crash, the management of the Iraq war and other factors.  Just focusing on the congress appears to be out of place as ultimatly they are not the under the direct control of Bush.  RTRimmel 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The approval ratings of congress are from before the 2004 election - when the congress was republican controlled.  That is why the republicans were voted out, and the democrats gained control of congress.  The sentence reads like it's the democratic congressmen that the public disapproved of, when, in fact, their opinions of congress were formed when republicans were in control.  Thus, the sentence is misleading, at best.  In addition to be a non-sequitur, out of place, and the other things mentioned. Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote remove the sentence , it doesn't add anything and only creates confusion. As we have 3 opinions to that effect, I'll remove it and we can discuss a less confusing replacement sentence later.  76.181.100.218 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I will not change this anymore, since I agree that this article is on George W. Bush and not on the 110th U.S. Congress.  However, I do want to make it clear that the record low 11% approval rating was taken very recently and is for the Democrat-controlled Congress, not the Republican-controlled one.  To me, it seemed as if Bush's low approval rating mention seemed very biased and I thought that mentioning the Congress' also-low approval rating would put things into perspective.  But alas, there's also mention of Bush's recored high 90% approval rating as well, which seems to balance things out. Abog 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After reviewing your source... its much lower than every other poll I could find from the same period(Bush's ratings were low too so take heart).  Gallup has them trending down, but Congressional approval was not been over 30% for the entire year of 2006.  To be certain, approval is low but this article isn't the place for that discussion.  RTRimmel 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His approval rating, nevertheless, remains higher than that of the Democrat-controlled Congress. 

message: Why is the photograph captioned "George W. Bush Jr" when the article itself says "However, because the son's full name is not exactly the same as his father's (the younger is George Walker Bush as opposed to the elder George Herbert Walker Bush), the "Jr." is incorrect"? Be consistent!
MacAuslan 08:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  I removed it.  --ElKevbo 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. MacAuslan 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jr.

message: In the opening preamble section there's a bit about Bush's approval ratings.  It sights the historic highs and lows he has managed to achieve, going on to say he's reached lower approval ratings than any president for 35 years.  Well and thorough, but is it necessary once these points are made to have to say "Only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon scored lower.[10]"?     Seems a bit overboard in the opening paragraphs of a biography.  Thanks. 125.174.223.253 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is known for, among other things, being a highly unpopular president and some context is necessary.  He also had one of the highest approval rating did beat out the previous president, though Clinton did end his term with a 65% approval rating and maintained a decent approval rating through most of his term.  I think its valid simply because it is way off of a 'typical' president, Reagan and Ford's articles do not mention their approval ratings which were both close to 50% most of the time, but when 7 of of 10 people think you are doing a bad job it requires some scrutiny.  As for listing references, I prefer the actual names rather than "Only two other presidents in since WW2 have had lower approval ratings."  The current sentence is shorter and more informative.  Finally, the fact that a president with such a low approval rating yet somehow remains effective through legislative tactics remains impressive.  Even with this rating George Bush is a very effective president in so far as he is able to push his agenda through the office of president, even if you happen to personally disagree with his agenda and how he is doing it, regardless of my personal opinion. RTRimmel 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one could go either way. It's quite important to his biography that he's been both a popular and equally unpopular president, but the last sentence does seem to be just a tad gratuitous. Like I said, it could go either way. If someone wants to remove it, I won't object. The Evil Spartan 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hate to say it, but I don't think its going to matter.  With his current planned vetos its very possible that his rating is going to drop even lower than it presently is.  The source mentions that only those presidents ranked lower so I'm inclined to leave it in for context (there are worse presidents) but its possible that he's going to drop even lower.  I'd probably reword the sentence to include them, but I'm unsure that it matters long term.  RTRimmel 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the sentence from the lead for two reasons.  First off, as has already been pointed out, context for Bush's low approval ratings has already been made, the additional sentence adds little and frankly does not belong in the lead.  Additionally, since opinion polling has only been done reliably since around World War II, this comparison can only be made between the last 12 or so presidents and therefore, in reality, is not very informative.--Rise Above The Vile 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessary?

message: There is really no reason for the extended working vaction bit during the Katrina Section.
I agree, it seems to be a criticism outside of the criticism section, and therefore should be excised from that part.  If anyone wants to keep it, I suggest that we move it to the perceptions and criticisms section, as the "working vacation" seems to belong there. --142.58.176.123 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Katrina Vacation

message: Regarding Katrina, I was wondering if anyone planned on adding the exchanges between George W. Bush and the authorities of Louisiana before the hurricane hit?  That Bush urged evacuations, but the that the advice was ignored?
74.138.95.115 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources for this?  If you do, that information may be useful for this article.--Rise Above The Vile 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have to agree with the above fellow IP (I can't find a source, but I do believe that the head of one of the major organizations (FEMA?) did call Negan and plead for a mandatory evacuation). I read the section, and it's not too bad, except that if it's going to include the comments from critics, it should probably briefly mention anything that Bush-backers have said. There's also this sentence: ...leaders from both parties attacked the president for having appointed incompetent leaders to positions of power at FEMA,. It should not come right out and state that Michael Brown was incompetant (allegedly would suffice much better), and the statement "from both parties" could probably be reworded to just "leaders", as the vast majority of the criticism was from Democrats. 71.58.97.225 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the info still needs a cite. Happyme22 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina 

message: n August of 2006, Lakehead University of Thunder Bay launched an international advertising campaign dubbed "Yale Shmale," that features a goofy image of Bush with the title'Yale University, Class of 1968'. Ontario University Mocks President Bush The "Yale Shmale" advertising campaign pokes fun at U.S. President George W. Bush and his Ivy League alma mater. The poster reads, "“Graduating from an Ivy League university doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smart,”Posters with a picture of George W. Bush and the headline Yale Shmale put Lakehead University in the spotlight Phase 2 of the awareness campaign replaced the headline “Yale Shmale” and its image of the U.S. President with the message: “Be Smart. Choose a university that’s right for you.”
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this have anything to do with the article?--Rise Above The Vile 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rise is completly correct. Please lay off the Bush-bashing. Happyme22 05:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic, it is used to discuss changes to the article.  Please stop soapboxing.--Rise Above The Vile 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yale Shmale Addition. 

message: I have entered the following several times only to have it deleted:
Bush has repeatedly warned the world about terrorism - “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
“If anybody harbours terrorists they’re a terrorist; if they fund a terrorist they’re a terrorist; if they house terrorists they’re terrorists – I mean I can’t make it any more clearly (sic)."
NB - Wiki entries show us that terrorists, e.g. [Luis Posada Carriles] and [Orlando Bosch] are currently being harbored by the USA.
Why is this entry being deleted? and by whom? when it is so telling about this man?
If you assist a terrorist and you're considered a terrorist then shouldn't Bush be considered a terrorist? How about his father?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.149.229 (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an interesting point, but it sounds like original research. You need to cite a source. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: Can Bush be tried as a war criminal? This article should include that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.242.133 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he were officially tried as a war criminal, then yes, it would merit inclusion. But just because fringe elements of certain activist groups suggest that he should be does not mean that it warrants inclusion in this article. See WP:REDFLAG, WP:LIBEL, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and/or WP:UNDUE ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Was that a rant, or was there something you wanted to add which would be constructive to the article? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 08:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Criminal 

message: When the lead says that his handling of the economy is controversial (I know the lead isn't the place to get into specifics), but what does this refer to? I mean, unemployment is at 4 year lows, economy has grown 20% since 2001, wages are starting to go up...I mean, what am I missing? What are the alleged misdeeds to the economy? Thanks so much, Judgesurreal777 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, without getting into the merits of the bush economy (and I largely agree with you), what really matters is whether the sources cited support the claim. The sources cited for that are the exit polls and the presidential debate. The exit polls note that there's a 49-51 split against Bush's handling of the economy, and the Presidential debate...well I don't know what you can make of that. In any case, neither really said anything about any controversy (there might be a near 50-50 split in mustard brand preference among Americans, that doesn't mean there's controversy). The sources cited seem to be the very definition of Primary sources, and hence are Original research, and hence verboten on Wikipedia. I've changed the marginally less-bad "domestic issues," only because just leaving it about the war would be even more misleading. I'm sure others will disagree with my change. --YbborTalk 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many factors, I think that the fact that he has run up more debt than every other president combined and that many of his economic policies bluntly favor the wealthy as opposed to the whole of the country cause most of the concern of how his economic policy works.  We've  had to raise the debt ceiling 2(3?) times since Bush has been in office and there was a pretty big gap in the amount of debt owed vs that ceiling when Clinton left(note, Clinton was not in a war or dealing with a recession so that's not all that special, but reasonably noteworthy that a democrat used that money responsiably instead of on more social programs).  The dollar is also at a historic low and the cost of gas is near record high, oil is $80 a barrel which is approaching 70's oil range adjusted for inflation.  Unemployment is low, but the average median income has dropped for lower and middle class people while growing significantly for the wealthy.  The disparity of income is at record levels, highest ever recorded actually.  (During the Clinton years they were amoung the lowest ever recorded so this shift has happened recently). Many of the unemployed have moved from higher paying jobs to lower paying jobs.  The economy is transitioning, how much influence Bush wields here is questionable, but he is the president.   RTRimmel  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Friendly question about the lead

message: I've removed this section added by  for failing WP:NPOV and WP:OR. In addition, it appears to be original research, claiming the hand gesture is the sign of Satan. Links such as http://www.bushisantichrist.com are in no way reliable, and cannot be used. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does a biography of a living person need criticism that he doesn't have enough faith in a god? Randydeluxe 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't, and I've removed some of the section, leaving what little could be argued as a reliable source. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite clear: "poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion". - auburnpilot talk 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no OR, I provided numerous references. Your removal of the well-referenced section is vandalism. --RucasHost 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was not neutral by any stretch of the imagination and used far from reliable sources. As far as it being vandalism, I suspect you know it wasn't vandalism or you would have reverted again. No good faith edit is vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Rucas, please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Well-intentioned edits are not vandalism, whether they are appropriate or misled. (I happen to agree with AuburnPilot on this, but that does not change the meaning of WP:VANDAL.) I've had a bit of prior contact with AuburnPilot, and I assure you he is quite the upstanding Wikipedian. - Che Nuevara 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the comments, CheNuevara, and I agree that a religion section could have a place in this article. It will need to be referenced, however, with main stream reliable sources. When sourcing a high profile biography such as this one, it us usually best to stick with news outlets, journals, standard publications, and trusted websites. Websites such as bushisantichrist.com, savethemales.ca, and bushrevealed.com don't pass the test.  - auburnpilot talk 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, correct on this point. I will try to see if I can dig something up. - Che Nuevara 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the links. Hopefully we can get something written out... - auburnpilot talk 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious beliefs section

message: I was just reading about the Don Siegelman case and glanced through here and we do not mention the DOJ at all during the article.  Given the massive amount of contraversy surrounding the midterm firing of Prosecutors and the widespread accusations of partisan biases, it needs to be in here.  I'll type something up later today, but my questions is why isn't it here already? RTRimmel 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the DOJ matter is covered in the following article this one references - Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Anastrophe 16:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that we discuss Katrina and Bush's first veto here, I believe Bush's handling of the DOJ should be mentioned.  I'll write something up when I get home later tonight, if only to provide context and throw them to that link.  RTRimmel 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with adding a summary of the controversy to the appropriate section within this article, along with a  link to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I don't, however, find the Siegelman controversy relevant to Bush. As far as I know, nobody has suggested Bush was personally involved in that case. - auburnpilot talk 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Rove was and it is a very good example of the political manipulation of the Justice Department. That said after the nice copy edit, I do think that the section is a good addition to the article overall.  I'm now reviewing Bush's stance on terror to see if it is a worthwhile add. RTRimmel 03:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "But Rove was [...]". i'm confused. this article is george bush, not karl rove. wikipedia isn't for providing "good example(s) of the political manipulation of the Justice Department". it's for providing verifiable information about the subject of the article. if you can provide verifiable citations of bush's direct involvement in the DOJ firings, by all means add it. speculation about his role, or the role of others in the presidents administration, don't belong in this article. Anastrophe 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've trimmed the section to only those points particularly relevant to this article. the remaining details are appropriately and fully covered in the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article. Anastrophe 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in this section that the dismissal of 7 US Attorneys is "unprecedented", but Clinton fired more; (I believe 93.)  I would suggest that this sentence be modified to reflect this. 70.70.219.147 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Department of Justice 

message: what's with the picture? i mean, i don't like bush, but that looks like vandalism which i can't revert since it's protected. - 89.136.168.239 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is it just me or was that a dig at a previous user? surely that violates pretty much every rule of wikipedia. And besides, its not quite as simple as just leaving a country if you disagree with your president. Dark_Wounds  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark wounds (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See below. - auburnpilot talk 02:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: As much as someone might not support or like the President, it is our duty as American citizens to have respect for our policians. It sickens me to see the picture with ' Worst President' as the main picture on this page. It would be more appropiate for Wikipedia to perhaps go back to the original White House photo of the Commander in Chief. 
A.Tarantola
Washington DC  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.126.26 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok it is removed, although i do understand why it was there. It was showing how some foreign countries perceive him. But since there was so much criticism, I decided to remove it.
Yboord028 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to re-include the image. The anon and person above were both likely referring to this edit which I reverted immediately. A vandal replaced the infobox image with the stencil, which was of course inappropriate. - auburnpilot talk 02:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe another image could be used to show some criticism of President Bush; one more widely agreed upon. Although I happen to support most of his policies, the critics should have their say too, but in a fair manner. Happyme22 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but I don't understand your statement that we "must show the most positive one available" when we are trying to illustrate international criticism of the subject.  That just doesn't make sense to me.  Am I missing something?  Or are some editors here really insisting that we water down or simply misportray this section because they don't agree with the message?  --ElKevbo 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we are not "trying to illustrate international criticism of the subject". this discussion is referring to the vandal edit that replaced the infobox portrait with the image from the "foreign perceptions" section. the latter remains in place; it was the former substitution that was inappropriate, and which has been reverted. Anastrophe 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm British :-p  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark wounds (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Did anyone remember that his name use to be George Willard Bush?  How come it is not search-able anywhere online?  It's like this name never existed... I clearly remember the name when he ran for governor in Texas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old days (talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name 

message: Refrain from inserting the POV-pushing "Some say..." regarding GWB as a "terrorist." It is inappropriate, and if you continue, you will be reported for disruptive editing. And, yes, your initial POV-pushing edit was marked "minor", a common tactic to hide the edits from those who don't include minor edits in their watch list. Very deceptive practice, that. K. Scott Bailey 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: I know the editors of this article have done such a great job in trying to keep the POV out, as President Bush is a controversial public figure. I do express concern over one, what I consider to be minor issue: the placement of the 2004 campaign section. Bush was President during his 2004 campaign, so would it not be more factually accurate to put that subsection in the "Presidency" section? Example: Ronald Reagan... Just a thought, but I think it will benefit the article chronologically-wise. Thanks, Happyme22 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying Happy, but the rest of the article is not set up chronologically, it is set up by topic (unlike Reagan's article).  Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate to separate the 2004 campaign.--Rise Above The Vile 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the article not in chronological order? Shouldn't this be fixed?--Southern Texas 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would require a major rewrite of the entire article and would not give any noticeable benefit.  The article is not chronologically inaccurate mind you, its just that it is set up by policy area as opposed to a timeline.  Rather than discussing significant events of Bush's first term and then moving on to significant events of Bush's second term, it outlines his policies toward a specific issue over his entire presidency (the specific topics themselves are discussed chronologically accurate).  In my opinion, structuring the article by policy area gives the reader a more full view of the president.  Take for example the Stem cell research section.  If the article were split up according to chronology, the last sentence about Bush's veto would not fit in anywhere in the article.  To make it an entire section of Bush's second term would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.  If we were to add it to a miscellaneous section we would not have a coherent article.  The structure of the article would make mentioning this veto impossible.  However, the event is still relevant to Bush and should be included.--Rise Above The Vile 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 campaign section placement 

message: Peter Keisler is listed as the current AG.  Actually, Michael Bernard Mukasey is the nominee and will be AG once Congress confirms him.   --72.75.91.146 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Keisler is the acting Attorney General; Mukasey has not been confirmed yet and therefore is not the current AG.--Rise Above The Vile 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Next Attorney General 

message: On the last paragraph of the introduction.
"...[10] the lowest level for any sitting president in 35 years.[11]"
Should this say since Nixon?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.2.188 (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should add that the President 35 years ago was Nixon, or that 35 years ago was when these polls started being taken, (whichever is true,) to add some context, because readers need to be able to interpret the numbers given to them, instead of simply staring at them blankly. 142.58.176.139 21:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Started 35 years ago? Scientifically reliable polling data has been available since Coolidge (see the "Worst President" article linked as a reference in this very article) 169.226.100.27 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since Nixon? 

message: I must say, I am surprised at the lack of mention of his religious convictions in this article. The religious right is a major socio-political force in the US and has been instrumental in supporting Bush through both election campaigns. He has made numerous public pronouncements about how his faith has guided his presidential decisions and policy, how he believes that God wanted him to become president, how he believes that human rights were derived from God, the Faith Based Initiative... That's not to say that he's a fundamentalist or evangelist - he keeps quite quiet about specific beliefs on things like creationism, abortion, homosexuality and other vexed questions that play on the religious right's mind. But it seems that his Christianity is a deep part of what drives and guides him and should be given a little more airing in this article. I'm not condoning OR - but this article does look a little odd without at least a brief mention of the faith of maybe the most overtly religious president in living memory. AJKGORDON«» 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is an accurate way to judge Bush's religioius convictions.  I do agree that the religous right helped him get elected but I remember a story coming out a while back about a former member of his administration leaking that he had bad mouthed the religious right and didn't really buy into there agenda, he was simply courting them for there vote.  I could probably find the story if I did a little digging.  It isn't much different then how other politicians focus on other demographics, much like how Hilary is courting the chinese-american vote.  Outside of just mentioning he of christian faith I don't think there is really much else you could say for lack of reliable sources. Elhector (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No judgement is necessary and would be contrary to WP policy anyway. But through what I've mentioned above, duly cited, it is clear that his religious convictions play an important part in defining his presidency and this is completely omitted from the article. AJKGORDON«» 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point I guess.  I don't know that there is any way to properly cite it do to lack of sources.  Aside from Bush making a lot of vague refrences to God and Christianity in his speeches and rehtoric pretty much anything out there on his religious convictions are complete speculation.  I don't think he's come out and said or done anything that sets him apart religiously from any other president.  It's all pretty much been the same generic christian rehtoric that any other president has used in the past.  Pretty much every president has been of a protestant demonination of Christianity except for JFK.  Elhector (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "...it is clear that his religious convictions play an important part in defining his presidency..." Unless there are reliable sources telling us that, we are veering into original research, and POV. I tend to agree with Elhector that it is fairly typical of Presidents. I would consider Jimmy Carter's presidency to be more defined by his Christianity than Bush's. ("Lusting in his heart", and all that.) - Crockspot (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... maybe my perspective, as a non-American, is different then. Bush's Christianity is a fairly visible issue here in Europe, reported on quite extensively (but maybe not explicitly), and is in direct contrast to the lack of religious conviction shown by most of the EU's political leaders. Even Tony Blair when PM of the UK, a more overtly religious PM than ones before, was suitably embarrassed when asked if he had prayed with GB before the invasion of Iraq! If I have time, I might see if there are sources for a piece on GB's religiousness and put something up here for consideration. But if somebody else wants to, please do so. AJKGORDON«» 07:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is POV at all to talk about President Bush's religion and how, according to this book, it apparently influences him.
*Here's from page 117: "[he called on] friends by phone to pray before presidential debates in 2000."
*from page 148: "Jewish leaders have come away from meeting with George W. almost enraptured by the sense by the sense of commitment to the defense of Israel and protection of Jews worldwide that George W. has often conveyed."
*from page 155: "faith shows us the reality of good, and the reality of evil."
*from page 163: "May He [God] always guide our country. God bless America."
*from page 185: "Every night before he goes to sleep he recites a childhood prayer that his mother had taught him."
*from page 170: "Those close to George W. during the 2001-2003 period said that he grew in strength, depth, calmness, and steadiness as he dealt with the post-September 11 challenges to the United States."
These seem pretty significant for the President of the United States, espcially one who has gotten so much criticism. I think mentioning his faith is perfectly approproate and definitely not POV as long as the facts are truthfully presented and the wording is neutral. We mentioned Ronald Reagan's faith in his FA article in the first section! Happyme22 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious convictions 

message: There was never an assasination attempt on GW Bush.  He was no where near the stage and nor was he scheduled to speak anytime soon.  Please remove this error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberclops (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the source given for that section, it contradicts everything you just said.--Rise Above The Vile 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The man is serving life in prison in Georgia for attempted assassination. That's an assassination attempt.Apartcents (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  there is another factual error on this page 

message: Hate to edit a controversial page such as this, but this is twisted. This is not the lowest approval rate of past (I recall reading Jimmy Carter only received 19% in Star Spangled Men). However, even if the book is wrong or I recall incorrectly, the sentence as it read was not backed up by the source right after it. So I rewrote the sentence so it would be true to the source and not twisting it. There is a difference between an approval rating and a disapproval rating. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, you are correct. thanks for the clarification. Anastrophe (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Danke. I'll have one of those I edited George W. Bush and lived to tell about it t-shirts now. :D Redwolf24 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My change 

message: I've looked around and it appears George has the most archives for a article in all of wiki.  This article has 50 some archives.  Just an example but, Hitler has 48 archives.  I'm not comparing George to Hitler, just that it kinda shows that he's a very controversial guy.  So i dunno where this would go in he article, interesting none the less.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.146.219 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty interesting.  So much vile and vitriol directed at a guy that will have absolutely no power in less than a year.  I'm willing to bet the debate and arguing here goes on for a long time after he leaves office.  I'd better get back on topic though, don't want the talk page police to yell at me for using this as a forum :-P Elhector (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're always watching. ;-) Although it is interesting, it wouldn't be something we would want to add to the article. We try to avoid self references. - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! That picture is great!  I understand it's not something to put in the article, It's just an interesting tid bit of info.  Thanks for bringing a little humor to a talk page that usually turns into a hostile battleground :-) Elhector (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I'm not comparing George to Hitler...."  Then why make it?  If you had made such a comparison to Bill Clinton, the "Con Cops" would have been all over you.  Much as I detest Bill Clinton, a comparison to Stalin would be way off-base.  Surely you could have found another person to compare the Younger Bush's archive count with. It's really a question of good taste.  PainMan (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The number of archives is a somewhat poor comparison since it doesn't reflect much on the length of those archives. More relevant would be the number of characters/bytes in total those archives represent Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily: some articles get a lot of chat from just a few users. Try checking out the talk page history at Talk:Gasoline (no seriously, funniest edit war ever). In any case, this talk page by far and away gets the most trolling, vandalism, and soapboxing of any talk page on Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most archives on wiki. 

message: Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D) Vermont, has recently stated that the President was not involved in the firings of the eight US Attorneys.
I propose to add this information to the section on this incident.  Even though Leahy's made the pronouncement as a move to circumvent the President's assertion of Executive Privilege which the President has invoked to prevent questioning of several key aides by the committee*, it is still relevant that one of the President's staunchest political enemies has cleared him of any involvement in Gonzales' bungling of the incident.
This move clears the way for Leahy to seek contempt citations against Bush aides such as Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers.  
If there's no objections, & I'll check back in a few days, then I'll amend the section.
Here's the AP (via FoxNews) story's url: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov29/0,4670,SenateProsecutors,00.html
*But it's not a simple process.  First the Judiciary Committee has to vote approving the contempt citations.  Then the entire Senate has to approve the Committee's findings.  Then the US Attorney General has to go to a US District Judge to seek a contempt citation against the subpoenaed persons.  This is essentially a judicial finding that Executive Privilege doesn't apply in the situation).  However, since the Attorney General serves at the president's pleasure...
PainMan (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i think this should go in. Leahy has been against the president on just about everything and this is pretty notable in my opinion (as well as his religious convictions which I added to - see above). --Happyme22 (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine it would be a controversial addition to the article.  However, I wanted to put the post up to cover myself against what one editor called "the page police."  (I agree with you about Leahy.  Or "Leaky" Leahy as Limbaugh calls him.  Even his Democratic colleagues are said to be embarassed by the, ah, lightness of intellect with which the Almighty has blessed Vermont's senior Senator.)    PainMan (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Attorney firings-- adding Sen Leahy's pronouncement: "Bush not invovled" 

message: I changed it to US and Australian forces to be more accurate, because Britain took little/no part in the initial bombing phase of Afghanistan, Australian F-111s did.  --TheOnlyJason (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: The mere fact that the caption under Mr. Bush's picture reads "biggest moron in the country" (on a protected page, so apparently its not vandalism), should disqualify this article from serious consideration.  Further, the tenor an tone of the article is not one of a scholar, who is interested in covering the facts, but of a political activist, who is interested in maligning his subject.  As a protected article, Wikipedia itself shares responsibility for this poor effort.  And for those commentators who profess that this is a good article, I believe some self-examination is in order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GolemDeath (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only semi-protected, which means it only barrs editing to unregistered IPs and accounts newer than four days. Vandalism on this articles is always promptly reverted because so many editors have it on their watchlist. However, it should be noted, GolemDeath, that simply because you personally believe that this article may be of questionable quality does not entitle you to remove it from the good article list. I have reverted your edit. If you have problems with a particular part of the article, you are welcome to discuss it here on the talk page. GlassCobra 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately this article gets vandalised a lot.  I double checked and didn't see the picture caption above so it looks like it has been corrected already.  We do try to keep this artilce clean from this kind of garbage.  You just happened to view the article in the small window of time that the caption was there.  If you take a look here  you'll notice that what you're speaking of above was reverted in less than a minute.  All we can do is be vigilante and revert these kind of things as they happen.  As far as the tenor and tone of the article goes, if you feel something could be done to improve it than by all means be bold and make the improvements.  Anyone is allowed to edit this article as long as they don't vandalise and their edits are within Wikipedia Guidlines.  Please see WP:Policy if you are unsure of the guidlines.  You'll also find some useful links on my talk page here on my talk page. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternative to what Elhector mentioned, you can try describing in more detail the problems you have found with the tone. BTW, the reason it is semi-protected is to reduce the occurence of vandalism such as the problem you describe with the caption. Finally, if you truly believe this article is not a good article or in other words it does not meet the Wikipedia:What is a good article? you are welcome to follow the process in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment to try and have it delisted. Be aware that as the reassessment page says, you should read the criteria first and explain specifically the problems with the article. This means, as I suggested earlier that a vague reference to the tone is not sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 

message: I have removed the ridiculous image shown below.  This is partisan political propaganda; in no way encyclopedic; and is an entirely unscholarly way to mock and ridicule the president.
Plenty of similar material could be inserted into articles about the Clintons (with FAR more justification), but would be just as unencyclopedic/politically partisan as this image.
Can't this image be deleted from the wikipedia's servers?  Only the most rabid Moveon.org fanatics could think this belongs in this article.  (Which is not to say there are no circumstances in which it couldn't appear in wikipedia; an article on political or specifically presidential satire could be a place for it.  For those seeking an impartial article on the Younger Bush, such partisanship has no place.
Whoever created this "stencil" obviously knows nothing about US presidents.  As for worst, the Younger Bush isn't even close: try James Buchannan, Warren G. Harding, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and most of the Gilded Age Chief Magistrates.
PainMan (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The very reason the image is included within this article is to identify, visually, the foreign perception of Bush. I completely disagree with your statement that this image is not encyclopedic. It very clearly identifies a viewpoint discussed within the section where the image is included. Additionally, I encourage you to tone down the rhetoric, as I am not a "rabid Moveon.org fanatic" and I believe this image has a place in the article. Articles are required to present the facts in a neutral manner, not in an entirely positive manner. If you want an image that mocks Bush in a completely unscholarly way, try :Image:VictoryIsACoolBreeze.jpg. That is in image you'll never see in the article. - auburnpilot talk 01:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with AuburnPilot, and I would suggest you look up this page a little at "Worst President Stencil Image in the Foriegn Perceptions Section", where there are a few more editors who agree. I've replaced the image in the article. Schcambo (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately, there are some very serious problems with this image, in terms of verifiability. first off - the stencil appears to have been made by the photographer. if you go to the wikiproject on graffiti that links to the image, you'll see a eight photos of these stencils, and the photographer has identified them as 'self made'. furthermore, there's no verifiable evidence that these were taken outside the US. the photographer states that he's in australia, and the text on the image in the GWB article states that it was taken in australia - but that doesn't make it an image representative of 'foreign perception of bush'. it is an image of a stencil that the photographer made him/herself. how is that an encyclopedic representation of of foreign perception of bush? what it is is actually a 'shill' image, claiming to be representative, but absolutely failing verifiability. it could have been photographed in downtown detroit for all anyone knows, as there is no identifiable foreign locale in the photo to prove its provenance. this image needs to go, simply on grounds of verifiability, i'm afraid. Anastrophe (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: i just read the section cited immediately above. again, verifiability comes into play. we cannot accept at face value the photographer's explanation of the photo. we're not in the business here of assuming the provenance of a photo, unless it is linked to from a reliable source. in order for this photo to be representative, it would have to be either linked to from a WP:RS that verifies that it was taken outside the US, or the photo would include within it evidence that it was taken in a foreign land. the question of whether random graffiti itself can serve as evidence of 'foreign perception of bush' is yet another problem. i'm sure if one looks around one might find a graffiti in somalia saying 'clinton worst president' - shall we include that in clinton's article as representative of 'foreign perception of clinton'? Anastrophe (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This picture is useless and adds nothing of any encyclopedic value.--STX 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have no objection to a genuine image of graffiti from a foreign nation depicting a negative view of bush; the problem is, this image does not depict that. i'd think it would be relatively trivial to find some genuine graffiti somewhere in the world where it's easily identifiable in the image where the photo was acquired. Anastrophe (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer that it be something other than graffiti, since that only shows the views of the creator.  It should be just as easy to find pictures from anti-Bush rallies, which would  show the view of a large number of people.--Rise Above The Vile 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, anything like that would be good, and would likely be published by a WP:RS as well, which is really what's needed. i'll take a poke around the net.Anastrophe (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image adds genuine encyclopedic content to the foreign policy criticism section. There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that the photographer who uploaded it is lying about his location - we don't employ nearly such stringent standards on other content. Besides, other graffiti might get deleted from commons (or Wikipedia) because the photographer would actually not own the copyright to the work (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). This image is actually a blessing in disguise for this article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia's policies on verifiability trump your argument. we can't just decide to suspend compliance by fiat. 'no reason whatsoever to doubt'? no reason whatsoever to trust, either. again, WP:VERIFIABILITY. and as has been pointed out, the image explicitly does not represent what it was claimed to represent in the article, nor what you suggest above that it represents. it's one person's own artwork, therefore one person's opinion, and so is WP:OR at best. it's simple: get an image from a WP:RS. surely one can be found (i've not had time to look myself). Anastrophe (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Evil Spartan, Explain the encyclopedic content that you feel this image adds. All it looks like to me is Bush smoking a joint, which doesn't demonstrate anything about "foreign perception". Is this suggesting that some Australians feel the pot use and the presidency are connected? I know that Bush is not disliked as much in Australia as he is in other places. We need a better image that would actually add something and that is verifiable, such as an anti-Bush demonstration in Europe or Palestine.--STX 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The joint had little to do with the purpose of the picture, which is to show the "worst president ever" part. With all due respect, STX, I believe you're taking far too narrow an interpretation of the picture, when it's clearly broader: there is a lot of opposition worldwide to Bush, and this picture perfectly describes it. As for Anastrophe's argument: you will note that images have actually been exempt from the WP:OR policy for precisely the reasons you bring up. We could claim OR with nearly every image on the encyclopedia, as it's often very difficult to get a reliable source, for a free image, which directly states "this is what this image means". The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture doesn't describe worldwide opposition to bush, it describes the creator's opposition to bush.  Pictures from anti-bush rallies or demonstrations would describe popular opposition to bush much better than this picture.--Rise Above The Vile 13:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For more "mainstream" illustration of worldwide sentiment, it would be hard to beat some of the cartoons drawn by award-winning Peter Brookes and published in The Times. For example, from his "Nature Notes" series, there was the "American Buffoonalo", a bovine herbivore. Or there's the "Hey! It's workin!" cartoon. Perhaps Brookes might be persuaded to release a free image for use in Wikipedia. Bluewave (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which images are not free. We must use free images whenever possible, as dictated by policy handed down directly from the Wikimedia foundation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "worst president" image 

message: I was wanting to add this image but of course there isn't much point if it's just gonna be reverted soon after. Would anybody object to it, and if not, suggestions as to the best place for it? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any room for an image of Bush and [[John Howard]]? 

message: It is relevant to state that George W. Bush is the son of former president George H.W. Bush, but it is irrelevant to talk about a distant unspecified relation to another former president.  The nature of genealogy is such that millions of people are "distantly related" to famous people.  If there is a direct relationship, i.e. great great great grandfather or something, it could potentially be relevant. Jacknchicken (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distantly related to Franklin Pierce 

message: I did not see this anywhere in the article.  It needs to be included. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.67 (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncyclopedia thataway. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't know that I would call Capitolhillblue.com a reliable source.  Looks like the article is an editorial and the quote above isn't sourced well in the editorial.  "I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper.” just doesn't cut it. Elhector (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'