Talk:George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States

message: I think its important to point out that the point out that the purpose of this article is to chronicle what George W. Bush did during his first term as president.--The_stuart 22:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Purpose 

message: This is a section of the page George W. Bush that was originally moved 
because of "NPOV" problems and redundent information already on that page.
Given that there is no dispute noted here, and that the only comment that *is* here is a) neutral and b) unsigned; I'm removing the dispute notice.  If someone wants it back, they can sign their name.  Baylink 00:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating this page 

message: September 11, 2001 was the sole day that defined Bush's first term. Please do not remove that information, if it's there. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 15:24, 3 Jun 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance of 9/11 in term

message: I am trying to start a discussion of removing this article and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States at the Bush talk page.  Additional and important facts from these pages could be added to the main Bush article but the duplication and differences are only going to create growing problms.  Let's discuss it there at Talk: George W. Bush. -JLSWiki 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article is already huge. If you take a look at it in edit view, you will see the recommendation to split it in different articles at the top. That is actually why I started this article. --The_stuart 15:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article should be Removed in favor of the [[George W. Bush]] Page

message: Should not Executive Order 13233 be mentioned?  Badagnani 08:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Executive Order 13233]]

message: While this was a juicy story in the media for a couple of days, given several years perspective, I think it becomes more clear that it no longer deserves an entire section, and I'm not even sure it deserves a sentence.
1. Gov't agencies have budgets for advertising and getting out their message. Education dept has a $56 billion budget. Would any sane person not spend some money on getting their ideas out to the public?
2. Hiring a commentator who didn't tell others he was receiving money was bad, but that more reflects on the man than on the administration.
3. No crimes were committed.
4. He was not a cabinet officer.
5. Bush did not hire him.
KeithCu 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs to be removed entirely. Perhaps, rephrased and integrated into another section. --The_stuart 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about it some more, I think removing it entirely is bad. I could make a sentence in the education section. When you see that NCLB has only a few sentences, and this is legislation was the biggest piece of education legislation in decades which literally affects 10s of millions of children and their teachers, an entire section on armstrong williams seems very disproportionate, tho.KeithCu 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose we remove the armstrong william section 

message: I posted the following, which was removed by Jojhutton because he/she felt of little importance.  I countered that the New York Times page 1 article wrote that it was an escalation of hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
::In February 2001, U.S. and British warplanes struck air command centers in Iraq, including targets around Bagdad, in what Bush described as necessary to respond to Iraqi provocation.U.S. and British Jets Strike Air-Defense Centers in Iraq,New York Times,February 17, 2001,p. 1 News analysis of the decision by Bush approving the air strikes against Iraq beyond the ‘no fly zone’ suggested that Bush was sending a message not only for Iraq but for the rest of the world that he is approaching the role of world leader without timidity.Attack on Iraq: News Analysis; The World Stage, Act I, New York Times, F. Bruni, D. Sanger, February 17, 2001, p. 1
Should this item be included in the article.? cgersten -- tuco_bad 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does somebody have a link to the NYT article? Bonewah (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/world/attack-on-iraq-news-analysis-the-world-stage-act-i.html?pagewanted=1  cgersten (talk) tuco_bad 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That link contains a significant amount of editorializing, and that editorializing should not be viewed as reliable. The facts about this action are fine, detailing what someone thinks is the deeper meaning is not.  In that vein the line "News analysis of the decision by Bush approving the air strikes against Iraq beyond the ‘no fly zone’ suggested that Bush was sending a message not only for Iraq but for the rest of the world that he is approaching the role of world leader without timidity." should be eliminated.  It may be 'suggested' to the writers at the NYT, but the mere fact that someone believes that does not warrant inclusion here. Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the NY Times analysis so to create reflection on the significance (if any) on the air strikes. cgersten (talk) tuco_bad 22:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I would say remove the whole thing.  Analysis is just another word for opinion, which has no place here. Bonewah (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Article as well as many other articles contains opinions from "established" sources. An example in this article: Public perceptions of Bush were reputedly of lacking interest in foreign affairs. cgersten (talk) tuco_bad 14:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion is the key word here.  Perhaps the NYT opinion of Bush might be appropriate in Public perceptions of George Bush, but this article is for facts about Bush, not opinions on his motivations, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush orders attack beyond "no fly zone" in Iraq 

message: Richard asr (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedited 

message: Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar 06:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228084150/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006034714/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031208-2.html to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031208-2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830190752/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/9_11/articles/911opener.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911opener.htm
*Added  tag to http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:66y7GXpNQZoJ:198.65.148.234/national/20050119-123017-8028r.htm&strip=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/https://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/010501bush.html to https://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/010501bush.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified