Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 21

message: As an occasional observer, I've gotta point out that this section needs major work. Long paragraphs are devoted to borderline-insuation about Bush's business dealings while major career points are given less than a sentence of mention. Like Bush successfully pushing a new stadium for the Rangers and -most shockingly- less than a full sentence on Bush's victory over popular incumbent Ann Richards (defying conventional wisdom). Less than a full sentence on one of the most important and most improbable (according to the wisdom of the time) events in the history of Bush-the-man and Bush-the-politician. This section has *serious* problems of focus that must be corrected if it is to be a serious article.
Is this an encylopedia article or a tabloid? There's too much for a casual observer to even start correcting.
:Generally speaking, if a Wikipedia article has poor focus because important points aren't given enough coverage, the solution is to add the missing material.  Additional encyclopedic information about the gubernatorial race would certainly be welcome.  Also, don't feel that you have to make the article perfect all in one go; it will improve through incremental changes that make it better. JamesMLane 16:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Business and early political career section

message: Oh come now, have a little fun.  The VfD is just for today. :P --Kitch 05:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[April Fool's Day]] 

message: I understand why wikipedia points to books both for and against Bush, but I have a suggestion that maybe you should split them up into two categories: for and against.  With splitting them up, people can easier find the sources they want to read instead of having a mish-mash list that alternates between pro and against.
:I'm not sure that everyone reading this article comes here with their mind already made up... it's our job as editors to help them understand what is, like everything else in the real world, rarely 'black and white'. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: Maybe I'm just stupid, but why do the tables say that as of April 3, 2005, President Bush is the current president and republican party candidate and the next says 'To Be Determined'? Shouldn't that say something like incumbant? It really confused me at first!   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The middle table is the current position holder.  The right table is the sucessor.  His sucessor (the next President of the United States) has not been determined.  Hopefully that helps you understand.  --Randy 05:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: " His sucessor (the next President of the United States) has not been determined. " as far as is commonly known, of course. Gzuckier 17:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Pres TBD?! 

message: I removed the POV tag and hope neutral edits continue to the page and we can keep the version we have as of this timestamp excepting additions since this is an ongoing event...we can bring it to a vote here...as to whether the tag should stay or be removed.--MONGO 14:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear - did you actually perform any of those edits yourself, or are you a spectator to the edits who now feels the article is 'neutral enough' in your view to remove the tag? I only ask because without participating in the editing process, your removal or placement of the tag seems somewhat superfluous. If an edit is made that you 'disagree' with, will you put the tag back, or will you contribute to the article by editing? -- RyanFreisling @ 16:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited this article for several months now...where have you been? I have no intention of replacing the tag if the edition remains as it is...however, I see that someone else has now put the tag back...for the record, a fair amount of the recent edits have been by those I am normally in disagreement with...I was removing the neutrality tag as a sign of appreciation for their renewed commitment to creating a more neutral article...--MONGO 05:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been here throughout - and I've watched as you've claimed that editing in good faith is not possible, over and over. If you've changed that outlook and are going to contribute as an editor, great. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag removed