Talk:George H. W. Bush/Archive 1

message: can we have some information of his role as a UN ambassador between 71 and 73 for Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. actually his role as renouncing india as an aggressor is mentioned on the main page of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. can i have more views on this topic by prominent users.
nids 06:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: info about his role in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

message: Both this and the Titles of Nobility Ammendment page says he had a GCB from Britain.  However, neither bothers to say why.  Anyone got a reason?
--Mrzaius 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Knighthood

message: I put up a new photo of Bush.- User:MikeAssad
:I don't think it is appropriate. The photo in the chart should always be the "official" portrait, if possible, from when the President was in office. A recent photo is not as good, it could potentially confuse people. user:J.J.
::He's still a very visible figure. It should be the official portrait for, say someone like Nixon, who is dead, but GHW is still very active and speaks a lot. Mike 03:18, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
:::All of the other presidents have either their official portrait or their official photo.  Jimmy Carter is also "very active and speaks a lot," and Wikipedia is using his presidential photo.  Same deal for Bill Clinton.  Chrisn4255 21:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Portrait 

message: Should there be spaces between the "H" and "W"? Shouldn't it be "George H.W. Bush" instead? User:MikeAssad   
There shouldn't be any spaces. 69.19.2.225 05:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces in H. W. 

message: Unlike the Barbara Bush article, this one has copious white space. Is there any other good reason to have it gone from here? WhisperToMe 05:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the funeral pic, he is not the main subject. There is good reason to find one that is more relevant to the subject at hand. I'm sure many exist online. The Reagan library one already portrays all the fmr presidents.--Jiang 00:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: okay...added some more. --Jiang 01:43, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The funeral pic in this article 

message: Shouldn't there be some information on Bush's involvement in Iran-Contra and his midnight pardons of the major Iran-Contra players like Caspar Weinberger?KrJnX 15:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! Off the top of my head, Bush was cleared by the Congressional committee, and no charges against him were presented to the grand jury by the Office of the Independent Counsel. The other five pardoned by him on December 24, 1992 were Alan Fiers, Robert MacFarlane(sp?), Clair George, Duane Clarridge(sp?), and Elliott Abrams. Hope that's enough to get you started. Ellsworth 17:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran-Contra 

message: Removing this until a source is cited
:Bush ran a company called Zapata Oil which is rumoured to have operated as a CIA front and to have been involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Articles should not include mere rumors unless they are in and of themselves significant in some way.Ellsworth 17:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zapata Oil 

message: One quote, and it's that athiest quote?  I don't doubt he said that, but it hardly seems representative.  He isn't all that well known for his position on athiesm.  How about "Read my lips, no new taxes"?  How about something relating to the invasion of Iraq?
:"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." 
I removed from article. Disinfopedia is not, I think, regarded as a reliable NPOV source. Am I right on this? Ellsworth 19:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: I edited the paragraph on the Gulf war and Bush's reasons for not going further–the section made it look like the US did not invade Iraq in 1991, when it did - it occupied a section of territory south of the Euphrates river until the cease-fire agreement. Ellsworth 23:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulf war 

message: Whats with that Reagan link in the table on the right? (edit) sorry, I understand now. I think it is a bit confusing though...
---
What's confusing about it? 69.19.2.225 12:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan link 

message: It seems someone deleted any history of his time before becoming President way back in November, and for some reason the vandalism was never caught (! - see ). I've added this back into the article, with the exception of the line about him in the CIA. I don't know if this is accurate, but a google on 'bush 1959 cia'  throws up a lot of links that look mildly, um, suspicious. Fails the sniff test, that sort of thing; as such, I've left it out for now. (The removed sentence, incidentally, was "It is believed he joined the CIA as agent in 1959, and was involved in the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba in 1961." - it was originally the first line under "Rise in politics", to save anyone looking for it. Shimgray 21:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political history section 

message: Again, I am amazed at the level of detail that is spent on embellishing any derogatory implications in this article and the article on George W. Bush, yet the lack of detail on other articles, such as the one on Bill Clinton.  In fact, if there is a mention of a derogatory implication in Bill Clinton's article, it is then justified by mentioning that someone in the Republican party had once been accused of the same incident(which I see no documentation of).  I certainly hope that people, especially young impressionable folks, will also compare the objectiveness of your authors and view a lot of this as one sided commentary.
baby boomer
What, specifically, do you mean? 69.19.2.225 12:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  objectiveness 

message: I've heard that George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush (our current president) are related to the British Royal Family, whose descendants include Ret. Gen. Colin Powell and Sen. John Kerry (who ran against Bush jr. in the 2004 election). Genealogists compiled the Bush family tree that indicates and denotes ancestry to the Hanovers and Windsors, plus the possibility the Bush family also descended from the Spanish Hapsburgs and Spanish king Carlos V is a distant relative. It's widely said Colin Powell, a Jamaican-American with European "white" blood had a great-grandfather was a duke and surely related to Prince Charles, the heir of the British throne. Can anyone send me a link to verify the source of these findings in the Bush family ancestry? --Mike D 26 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush ancestors 

message: Books detailing earliest family tree for Bush Family and other 
US Presidents at this link
(and showing descent from Mohammed, Jesus / Holy Grail Family ,
India Emperors and China Emperors, and heroes Alexander the Great,
Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony; Kings across all Europe and the Middle
East, including Kings of Jerusalem , and including tyrants Nero's
family and Herod ...
bamm.com link to books with other early ancestors of Bush family 
/ early Bush family ancestors
Thanks and nevermind what I said...a fellow Wiki has the links I been looking for. In the future, I could edit the articles (G.W. Bush and G.H.W. Bush) to add the ancestry information. Wikipedia expects us to keep a footnote on the sources of any recently added/reverted info. However, any actual lineage from Jesus Christ, Mohammed and emperors of Japan crosses theological boundaries. But the Bushes aren't qualified to be "gods" or deities no matter what their family tree shows, like they are holders of the holy grail...LoL. --Mike D 26 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest Bush  Family Ancestors 

message: I think this line should be modified:
including Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California, which have since gained the reputation as "blue states" that favor the Democratic Party in presidential elections.
Pennsylvania is considered a swing state that only very mildly favors Democrats, unlike the other two which were considered all but impossible for the younger Bush to win in the 2004 election.
Maryland might be a better choice. More a thought than a complaint, I suppose.
69.19.2.225 12:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blue states" 

message: What is your source for this "official protocol"? I googled "Ambassador Bush" and couldn't find any present-day references to Bush by that name. And besides, wouldn't his highest previously held title be Vice President or President of the Senate? --Canoeguy81 06:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amassador Bush? 

message: Are you sure this is disinformation?  I've seen it all over the internet and haven't seen any dispute.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
This is reported to have been said by GHWB during an interview with Robert I Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal while at O'Hare International Airport on August 27, 1987.  It is definitely all over the Internet but this at least provides a source: http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm
Accuracy not withstanding, this is one of the worst run-on sentences I've ever seen.  Also, most of the detail here seems irrelevant.  I've edited this down to the salient point.  I normally wouldn't post in an article's talk about such an edit, but this feels like a hot button issue.  (full disclosure: I'm an atheist that is appropriately enraged by the suggestion that those who believe there is no god cannot be patriots.) Pokerriot 07:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's anti-atheist comment.. 

message: This line is right at the beginning of the post-presidency section: "Since his final election campaign, Bush has largely retired from public life. The Bushes live in Houston, Texas and their summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine."
Is Bushes really the correct thing here? Cookiecaper 18:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bushes? 

message: This accusation that is stated as fact without naming his accuser. I see justification is given in the edit comment as The Observer August 8 1993 page 15. Is that a British weekly paper being referred to there? Way back on page 15 no less? The only thing I could find on this accusation which unfortunately predates the internet (only found on fairly fringe websites at that) is that The Observer interviewed Manuel Noriega at that time, who repeated unproven allegations on the subject. keith 09:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What accuser? It's a violation of the GC to strafe lifeboats, so if he did it he clearly violated the GC.  You don't need an accuser to point out that obvious fact.  Sorry about the lame source, but it was the best I could do with Lexis/Nexis, which I don't think has very thorough coverage that far back.  I recall reading articles in the Atlantic Monthly and seeing network news reports back in 93, but then I can't cite my memory.  But I still don't see why the current source is inadequate, and the article I read (which I can email to you if you like, but I won't post it due to copyvio concerns) does not mention Noriega. Gamaliel 20:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding. In fact the Geneva Convention only applies to strafing unarmed vessels. Which is a good example of why you should give sources for legal opinions and not state them as fact, or you end up with egg on your face as well. Because according to  in , which took me about 30 seconds to find, the entire controversy in 1993 died when divers "found mounds of small arms munitions lying on the deck, as well as a large gun mount laying on its side with a munitions box nearby that contained 75 mm anti-aircraft shells". They even give pictures. keith 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think you need a lawyer to state the obvious, but in any case the new information you found has rendered the matter moot. Apparently the boats were not lifeboats as the news sources indicated. Congratulations on your speedy searching skills; I didn't think that google would be much use on a ten year old news story so I limited my search to Lexis/Nexis.  Gamaliel 01:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trawler Strafing Story 

message: Why the long further reading section when we don't have a single reference, which is much more important? If any of the books mentioned were used as sources, please, let's cite them as references. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The cited source for this trivia, Metro Newspapers  states that the spelling for this Japanese verb is "bushuru", yet an anonymous editor has changed the text  asserting that the correct spelling is "bushusuru".  Is there anyone from Japan who could help resolve this dispute?  Hall Monitor 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I do not have immediate access to a Japanese language teacher.  After doing some additional research, I have located a book, "Secret Lives of the U.S. Presidents" (Quirk Books, 2004, ) which does in fact refer to this verb as "bushusuru".  What I have done is left an in-line comment that the Metro Newspaper did refer to the verb as "bushuru" so that a more qualified language expert can make the necessary changes to the article later.  For now it is best that both sources are cited.  Hall Monitor 19:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bushuru or Bushusuru?

message: User:Belginusanl continues to make misleading changes to this page, as well as Iran hostage crisis and October surprise conspiracy. The conspiracy has been widely discredited, and more specifically, Bush's alleged involvement was shown by Newsweek to be false (he was in another place when he was supposed to be in Paris, etc). I feel that any discussion of the conspiracy should include the fact that it has been generally discredited, as to suggest otherwise (or simply not to make a statement about it) is misleading to the point of pushing a POV. Simishag 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran hostage crisis

message: Because George H. W. Bush was both a president and a vice president, would anybody mind me changing the code at the beginning of the page to make the page similar to William Howard Taft who was both a chief justice and president? I want to do it merely so that the flow of successor/predecessor in the chain of vice presidents is not broken. --MZMcBride 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox question 

message: I've heard some claim Bush 41 was pro-choice.  Any facts on this?--69.249.195.232 00:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-choice or Pro-life 

message: This character was president of a populous nation that liked to throw its weight around, is partly responsible for the darling Dubya, and has made millions. I expect the article to be full of what he did to the US and the world. But no: we read, inter alia, a whole uninteresting paragraph about some reference in The Simpsons. Can't somebody make a Simpsonspedia and chuck all this stuff there? Or do I misunderstand and must WP articles be written to satisfy thirteen-year-olds?
If this stuff really is trivia (as I think), cut it. If it isn't, move it or at least retitle it. -- Hoary 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I am placing this article's GA nomination on hold for 7 days to address a few fixes. Overall a great article - only a few things strike me as needing to be fixed.  Primarily, although the article is cited, I think it needs footnotes in several key places so readers can easily tell where the passage is sourced and verified.  By "key places" I mean passages that are potential fodder for edit wars, such as statements about Bush changing his position on various issues. I request the following fixes:
* In the section "Postwar: Yale, family, oil business", a footnote citation for the Skull and Bones involvement since it is a theme in the article.
* In the section "Congressman and failed Senate campaigns", a footnote citation for the following paragraph, especially the comment about being called "Rubbers". If no citation is available, the paragraph should be removed:
During his career in the USA House of Representative Bush was very supportive of contraceptives and family planning. So much so that he was known as "Rubbers". He was a supporter of Planned Parenthood, of which his father Prescott had been the financial chairman. He criticized Pope Paul VI for his encyclical Humanae Vitae which reiterated the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to contraceptives.
* The section "1980 presidential campaign" needs to be copyedited and wikified.
* In the same section, the statement "When Reagan chose Bush as his vice presidential nominee Bush had to change his stance on abortion, previously he had supported keeping it legal but after becoming Reagan's vice presidential nominee he was opposed to abortion." needs a footnote citation.
* I'm not sure why the sections "Tiananmen Square (April–June 1989)" and "Fall of the Berlin Wall (November 1989)" are in the article.  They don't mention Bush.  If kept, they should concisely summerize his notable policies regarding those events.
Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Altough some minor concerns were addressed, at least two major points weren't modified or addressed. Adding to this the non-stability of the article and the fact that there is some concern over the utility of the Trivia section, the article was failed. Lincher 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination ... failed 

message: "Skull and Bones members provided support during his presidential campaign rallying huge sums of money for advertisment."
I have no idea whether this is true or not.  213.54.17.19, please cite your sources.--QuantumEngineer 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statement: campaign finance 

message: "[Bush's] employer at Dresser, Neil Mallon, who was a close family friend dating back to Skull & Bones at Yale in 1918 along with Prescott."
According to the list of Bonesmen floating around the internet--see e.g. 
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=37055&forum=4
Neil Mallon and Prescott Bush were both 1917 inductees, not 1918. This list doesn't look authoritative, but is there is a better source?72.61.73.16 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Connection between Neil Mallon and Prescott Bush 

message: As mentioned previously in the discussion page, this sentance needs a citation: "When Reagan chose Bush as his vice presidential nominee Bush had to change his stance on abortion, previously he had supported keeping it legal but after becoming Reagan's vice presidential nominee he was opposed to abortion."  If one can't be found, should the sentance be removed?  Arx Fortis 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: Do we really need 13 links to the same site (www.presidency.ucsb.edu)?  Can't we select a "main" link.  If people can find his article on Wikipedia, they should be able to find what they want there. Arx Fortis 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  13 links 

message: There was an inordinate amount of vandalism in the "Trivia" section of this article.  Can an administrator ban the IP which is responsible?  The IP is 70.16.153.92.  I'd do it myself, but I'm still a (relatively) new Wikipedian. Yale2010 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In the Trivia section, it says:
"He is the only President to have been a World War II U.S. Navy combat aviator. He was the last U.S. President to have been a veteran of that war. The other World War II veteans were Eisenhower; Kennedy; Johnson; Nixon; Ford; Carter; Reagan."
I can not find that Reagan was actaully in WWII (although he pretended to be on TV). Futhermore, Reagan was born in 1911, making him in his 30s when the war began....Perhaps this needs to be edited.
Reagan served in the U.S. Army stateside making training films.Awotter 07:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure that, 1993-1989 = 4 years. PPGMD 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Inaccuracy 

message: First, there is a serious lack of information in this article regarding Bush's life up until 1964.  For this reason, the article presents Bush as just a politician, rather than a (crooked) businessman who got into politics, and frankly, all the info on his various senate races, etc., is really frickin' BORING.  SO the first suggestion is to add to the early sections of his life, especially Business Ventures.  Second, I propose that the tables at the end, with the names of who preceded and succeeded Bush in every office he held, are meaningless and uninformative and should be removed.  All in Favor?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Laubin (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 September 2006  (UTC)
:I think more information on his early life would be useful, and I think the tables on who preceded and succeeded Bush should stay. --Pixelface 11:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Proposals 

message: I was reading this essay by Ward Churchill which attributes the following quote to GHWB: "The world must learn that what we say, goes." Does any editor know whether he really said that? Dianelos 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Bush actually say this? 

message: "labelled" should be "labeled" under the 1980 presidential campaign section. American spelling, and all.
"phillosophical" should be "philosophical" under the Trivia section. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing those out; I've fixed it now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, SEMI just off... I could have done them myself. Oh well... --198.185.18.207 19:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 typos