Category talk:George W. Bush administration controversies

message: The link for line item veto should be removed, that was removed back in 1998 by the supreme court, also the link given as a source for President Bush asking for Line Item Veto powers is broken, if it's a controversy to ask for line item veto power and a source can be cited I believe it should stay, but I hardly find this controversial 69.19.14.29 (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the electoral college voted George W. Bush into office, the popular vote didn't have anything to do with it. 144.15.255.227 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither of those are related to the administration.  One was before he took office.  The other appears to be weak allegations throughout the country against local election officials.--Tbeatty 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:Tubby and with 24.215.253.143. — goethean ॐ 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

message: (for current information on the current NPOV tag, scroll down to "unfair")
I tagged this article because it basically labels anything the administration does as a controversy. In addition, it includes links to articles that have almost nothing to do with the administration itself.--Jayzel 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality doesn't mean pandering to both sides of an issue, it means staying objectionable to the facts at hand. There is no tag needed. Fifty7 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed its a bad reason for NPOV. So is the below "there aren't controversy pages for other presidents" The definition of controversy is "a prolonged public dispute", of which all of these are clearly examples. "Controversy" does not imply wrongdoing, it implies that there has been substantive public discourse about possible wrongdoing, which I think is undeniable. I do think, for example, that Warren G. Harding should have his own controversy page, and perhaps Jimmy Carter, FDR, Reagan, James K. Polk, etc (any president where the the number of independent controversial issues would make the existence of a consolidated page beneficial to navigation and learning). But I'm not going to work on them, and to say that they should have to exist as prerequisites for this page to exist is inane.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  68.180.49.115  (talk • contribs) May 18, 2007 I have just created an account Charles HP 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: The following article should be linked to the "controversies" page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_insider_trading_allegations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.66.14 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is already a member of this category, if that is what you mean. — CharlotteWebb 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harken Energy 

message: Having a category dedicated to the controversies of one president is inherently a violation of NPOV because it makes one person seem worse by Bush being the only president that is "so bad he deserves to have a category page like this just for him." Unless the category is expanded to include controversies of all presidents, which is more encyclopedic since it gives more information or controversy pages from all other 41 presidents are made, it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, what happens when you do have a president whose administration is "so bad" they deserve to have a category page just like this for it? I see no problem with this page, in fact it was just what I was looking for. DelPlaya 05:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unfair 

message: It looks like there were/are a number of BLPs that have this category and the sub category US attorney dismissal. I tried to fix this as well as a few others that were questionable. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Folks list in both parent and sub categories