Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 52

message: Is there an official White House painting of George Bush? On the list of Presidents of the United States page, he is the only one represented with a photograph rather than a portrait. -MosheA 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paintings happen later. Clinton's painting was unveiled while Bush was in office. KeithCu 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official White House Portrait? 

message: As a member of the Global Perspective Task Force, I'm hoping to expand the foreign perceptions section of this article to include more Arab opinons (which are currently lacking). Any thoughts/advice?Benzocane 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. Yes wiki should include how the world sees Dubya. Xavier cougat 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good. Now should not his failings as a president be mentioned in the first paragraph? why go into history. a couple of paragraphs on what kind of president he is. Xavier cougat 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign perceptions

message: The statement in the third paragraph that Bush won the 2000 election is false.  He lost the election and was given the presidency by the Supreme Court which stopped the recount, which has later proven that Bush lost the election.  There were also so many irregularities in the 2004 election that it is highly unlikely that he won that election either. Gonezales 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but under the election system in the United States, Bush did win the election. Bush won the electoral college, which is how presidents are elected. The controversy surrounding the election doesn't change that. Also note Bush is not the first candidate to win the election without gaining the plurality. - auburnpilot talk 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get it do you?  Bush lost Florida in 2000, and thus also the electoral college.  The Supreme Court stopped the recount before that fact was learned. Gonezales 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not Bush won the popular vote in Florida, he won the electoral votes and thus claimed both Florida and the national election. I'm afraid you may be the one not getting it. We work in fact, not theory of what could have happened if something else didn't. - auburnpilot talk 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that gets into a funny area; US federal election law actually only requires that each state provide electors to the electoral college, and says nothing regarding the requirements of how they are chosen. Thus the threat by Brother Jeb's administration to just send a slate of proBush electors if the conflict continued. But Florida law states that the "will of the people" be assessed as accurately as possible to determine said electors, which can run into some obvious conflicts with other laws regarding deadlines etc., depending on which law you think takes precedence over the other. Thus, one valid position is to argue that Bush's election was valid by federal law, but not by Florida law. Gzuckier 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *What might have happened with zero federal involvement is debatable; I personally don't find the speculation of Gore's potential victory particularly compelling. But regardless, the point you're missing is that USSC rulings trump state legislation. Bush won the election in accordance with the SC ruling and the subsequent certification, hence Bush won the elections under US law. Controversial, yes; disputable, no. --XDanielx 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh come on...what about Harrison Ford. He was president, right? - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dohn't forget Martin Sheen, he was President, AND fought in Vietnam. Crockspot 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Billiot, the question is: Is being elected President the same as winning the election?  I think the terms are similar, but do not mean precisely the same thing, so the distinction can be drawn.  As an aside, I reviewed the Constitution and can find no language supporting a role for the Supreme Court in adjudicating Presidential elections.  Is it implied by some other power of the Court, or did I simply miss it?  --Ssbohio 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't tell me you need me to explain it to you.  I will but you might just want to R-E-A-D the constitution instead of just reviewing it.  The answer is right there.  Again, I will explain it if you want me to.  --Billiot 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, reviewing a document involves reading it.  And, assuming good faith in my question, you'd see it as my request for the information you've proffered.  Thanks. --Ssbohio 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Gonzales, I'm a card-carrying leftist/liberal whatever and even I think your argument is without merit.  Whatever the Supreme Court did or did not do or should have done is irrelevant; the final outcome of the matter was that Bush was awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes. Tarc 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think all can agree that Dubya was not elected in a clear, clean manner. Gore got most of the votes in the US. Most Americans wanted him. To me the Supreme Court should have taken that into consideration. It is a bad system. Most people do not want Dubya now but we have to put up with him till his term is up. He barley squeaked by in 2004. It has been a tragedy. And we cannot even say anything bad about him in Wiki. It is a great tragedy. Xavier cougat 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You think wrong. I don't agree at all. This discussion should be moved to a blog. It has nothing to do with editing this article. - Crockspot 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why did you respond to it if you think it is a blog? It should be mentioned in the article that the win was not clean. And do not respond if you think this is blogging. Xavier cougat 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I responded because you made an assertion that "we can all agree". We clearly do not agree. You have a POV, which is fine for a blog, but not for Wikipedia. This entire section is veering into blogish discussion, that is fair for me to point out. I'll reply wherever and whenever I see fit. Or not. - Crockspot 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  OK most of the 'voters' did not want him. and people do not want him now. What are your legitimate concerns? He comes his hair on the wrong side? which is the correct side? The article seems like a white wash to me. not enough critism. Most people think he is a bad president. Xavier cougat 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you cite any reliable sources to back up these sweeping assumptions? - Crockspot 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you serious? He lost the popular vote in 2000 which means most voters did not want him. And according to polls most people think he is doing a bad job. If there was an election now he would be out the door in a millisecond. yahoo 'failure' and who comes up. do you read the papers at all?  English only racist? Thats the one thing I thing he has the right idea. Who said he was 'satan'? He just a bad president. Actually seems like a nice guy to have fun with. He is very funny and comfortable and down to earth. Just not a good prez.   Xavier cougat 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you seem to gloss over the fact that he did win the majority in 2004...by your assertions that means the majority did want him. The fact remains the same; GWB was elected by the electoral college as all preceding presidents have been. There really is nothing more to it at this point. - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  No. Louisiana is not a 'race' There is nothing in the Consititution that says we have to let *anyone* in the country. It protects the citizens not foreigners. 
*Bush won. STOP! The Electoral College decides the winner of an election when it comes to the President. The Supreme Court awarded Bush Florida's vote. The popular vote just influences the electoral college. Bush won from the electoral votes. Sorry but this is how it works. Mrld 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Bush won, sure. But most of the voters didnt want him then and they dont want him now. Xavier cougat 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you don't understand the most basic concept of presidential elections in the United States. Bush did not lose the 2000 election, the article is not false, and no matter what image you produce, this will not change. Seriously, maybe you should read Elections in the United States. - auburnpilot talk 00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The point that is being made in the Elections in the United States article is that you do not have to win the popular vote to win the electoral vote.  That is not the issue that I am addressing.  It is also a stretch in that article to say "winning more electoral votes", because while Bush was given more votes, he did not win them in the election.  The issue that I am addressing is that when the votes were counted not all the votes were counted, and a later recount showed that Bush lost the electoral vote and the election.  Since the file above is dated Sept 5, 2006 we can see that it took almost 6 years to learn the truth.  However you can also weasel out of it by saying that Bush officially won the 2000 election, but that would be misleading because it shelters the fact that he did not win by the fact that the word "official" means "because I said so" and does not denote any need for factuality.  It would be much better to be a lot more accurate than that. Gonezales 03:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the chart the numbers came from The New York Times.  Here is what we can do, change 'won the election' to 'became president'.  No one will disagree with that. Gonezales 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  The only objection I had was to the word "won". Gonezales 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't work for me. If you'd like to change the current wording "Bush won the presidency in 2000" to "Bush was elected president in 2000" I have no problem. We will not, however, rewrite history. Presidents are elected; they do not "come to power". - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your attempts at a compromise, but the sentence already reads "Bush won the presidency in 2000 as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest." To change it to "Bush was elected in the highly disputed Election of 2000 as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest." would be really redundant. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortuantly this article Florida election recount would seem to contradict the New York Times which seems to be the basis for your argument.  President Bush was elected by the electoral vote with 5 points ahead of Al Gore.  As people have already stated, in the United States, you are not elected by the people directly to be the President but rather through the electoral college system.  Now there were 2 decisions casted by the Supreme Court, 1 being voted 7-2 that there were Equal Protections issues using different counting methods in different counties and the last 5-4 halting the alternate procedures.  Now when the electors met, they casted the electoral votes towards George W. Bush certifying him as the winner of the state of Florida thus winning the election.  Regardless of how you feel, Bush still won the election.  ViriiK 13:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What I am referring to is under the section "Review of All Ballots Statewide", which of course was undertaken later contrary to the article, or how else would the results be known?  The results of a review of all ballots statewide give Gore the election by less than 200 votes. Gonezales 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By rule, President Bush won the 2000 election, and it's not your job to make the desision. It was announced, and has been for 7 years, that he won the election. Get over it! Libertyville | Talk 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction - George Bush did not win the election 

message: There was no libel there. First he is a public figure. Second it was all source. This is not a place to promote one's political party. Xavier cougat 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch who you're calling partisan, I'm a card carrying libertarian—(Kepin)RING THE <B>LIBERTY</b> BELL 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, you could explain why you think it should be deleted. The section is properly sourced, complies in every way with WP:BLP, and is in no way libelous. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the article says nothing but good things about a prez it is partisan. The bad side of Bush should be presented also. Xavier cougat 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the entire, multi-paragraph section titled Criticism and public perception? Please also see the article devoted to the topic, Criticism of George W. Bush. If we crammed anymore criticism into this article, we'd have to change its title to George W. Bush and why people hate him. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was that just put in? I didnt see it yesterday. Xavier cougat 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been there for a long, long time, but there was an edit war ongoing at the time  &  although the situation was quickly resolved   Nil Einne 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the criticism section deleted 

message: He visited England recently, I think it was two years ago, I can't remember. Why isn't it here? Theres a paragraph on the Queens' section (elizabeth II) when she visited the President in 2007 so why not mention his visit to England? Or is it here, I can't find it.Tourskin 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The President of the US spends a good deal of his time travveling, visiting foreign dignitaries and such. If I'm not mistaken, from 1957 to the present she has visited the US five times, or about once every decade. As Bush visits Europe much more frequently, his travels are not as notable as the Queen's. Though this is just my opinion. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visit to England 

message: Having just read openly a "kind" wikipedia article about Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, I was surprised to notice the amount of controversy mentioned in this article about the President of the United States.  It is my intimate understanding that many of Hugo Chaves' reforms and efforts are equally if not more controversial with many critics.  The critics' opinions aren't emphasized in the article about him.  My question is why the critics' of President George W. Bush have a louder voice than those of Hugo Chavez, if the two articles are compared.
71.209.139.219 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appearantly you missed sentences in the lead such as, "Venezuelans are split between those who argue he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who allege he is an autocrat who has mismanaged the economy," the whole criticism section on Chavez's page, or the entire article entitled Criticism of Hugo Chávez.  If you still think there is a problem though, I encourage you to start editing the respective pages.--Mbc362 13:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why discuss Hugo Chavez on the George W Bush talk page? And think about it: this is the English language Wikipedia, edited mostly by Americans. Doesn't it stand to reason that there would be more going on with the article of the President of the US than a dictator in South America who most Americans have probably never heard of? You may have a valid point, but it's just common sense that this article would have more controversy surrounding it than the article for Chavez, not only because of the language of the encyclopedia but ecause Bush is a larger figure on the world stage than is Chavez, so Bush's article would attract more people, both supporters and detractors. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick comparison 

message: I know this is a bit off-topic, but I noticed that this article (like others I've noticed recently as well) has some sort of meta-tag description that yields text in the google search result that says something like "Open-source encyclopedia article provides personal, business and political information about the President, his policies, and public perceptions and ..." as opposed to just the opening text of the article. Does anyone know how this text can be added to articles, and what formatting we should put it under? If you could reply on my talk page (in addition to here) that would be great. Thanks.- Bonus Onus 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That text is from www.dmoz.org . It can't be changed easily because you'll need to contact an editor over there to change it. It's pretty unbias as it is, isn't it? --Gary King 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text for search results 

message: As I can see from the history, a lot of vandalism is going on in the page at this time. I don't like  him either but that doesn't mean that I want his page vandalized. Maybe locking the page for a while would be in order. --Maxl 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already semiprotected and is unlikely to be unsemiprotected anytime soon. However it's not likely to be fully protected either as the vandalism is only a few times a day. Even tho this is perhaps a high level for a semi-protected article it's not enough to warrant full protection. Protection is only used when vandalism reaches a level that it's uncontrollable e.g. every few mins. Most of the vandalism here is quickly reverted. Besides that, fully protecting it serves no real purpose. Vandalism is likely to quickly reach the same level once unprotected. So unless we want to make this an indefinete fully protected article (which is against policy for a case like this) until a few months after Bush leaves the White House, we won't really do much. Indeed full protection is rarely if ever necessary to deal with vandalism (except in cases where indefinite full protection is warranted). Nil Einne 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Just out of curiosity - how are you guys getting the templates to auto-hide themselves? I was searching through the code and it appears that they're just doing it randomly! --danielfolsom 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070621/ts_alt_afp/usbushpolitics_070621193228
I can't edit it, so I thought I'd point this out. Currently the article still cites 28% to be his lowest approval rating, when in fact, it is no longer.  74.226.90.237 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Low On Approval Rating 

message: This category is misleading. Going out and doing a prank once in a cheerleader wig does not make you a cheerleader, any more than Rudolph Giuliani is a cross-dresser because he appeared in SNL in that outfit. He was not a career cheerleader, and I'm not convinced that saying he was so isn't intellectually dishonest, let alone a BLP problem. I tried to take it out twice, but someone keeps putting it back. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The context does make it seem like it was a childish prank, but in fact he was head cheerleader during his senior year at Andover Academy.  I have added a reference for this fact.  A look over at :Category:American cheerleaders clearly shows that being a career cheerleader is not a prerequisite for inclusion in the category.  Anyway, in my recent edits, I'm not trying to place any value judgement on whether he should be placed in the category, but one should think more carefully about the merits of removing him before doing so with a glib "I think not."  Happy editing, Silly rabbit 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The truth hurts. But it's nothing to be ashamed of. Andover Academy was an all-boys school at the time. Here are pics of Bush as an Andover cheerleader:    FDR was a cheerleader at Harvard. Harvard had all male cheerleaders until the 70's. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a cheerleader at West Point. MrBlondNYC 01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And on FDR's page he is listed in the category.--danielfolsom 13:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with Eisenhower.  Silly rabbit 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that information helps. It was an all-boys school, and it wasn't just a short prank. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GWB=cheerleader 

message: I think that someone should change his occupation from businessman to President of the United States because that is what his current occupation is. ((unsigned|68.221.20.157}}
* Yes, I entirely agree with this.  He is not currently a businessman by any standard meaning of that word.  His job is "President of the United States."  Perhaps this label should be changed to "Former Occupation" or the like.  --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. The infobox provides the field so that we can see what the president's main occupation was before (and perhaps after) taking office. The Evil Spartan 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all agree with you Spartan, which is why it should probably be changed to Former Occupation, as that is his former occupation. He is not currently a businessman, but President. Perhaps it could be reverted after he leaves office, if he goes back into business. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; "Occupation = Businessman" is misleading and probably not NPOV. I requested a change to the template here. --XDanielx 07:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation 

message: Bush accepted a Purple Heart from veteran Bill Thomas. Thomas felt Bush deserved the purple heart do to the verbal assault he as had to take as President. Instead of respectfully refusing the pruple heart Bush accepted it. Because of this he has received criticism from several places. Does anybody know of a valid citable source for this fact?--Dr who1975 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do a Google search for "bush purple heart bill thomas". Daily Show fan? They did a funny interview with Thomas last night. MrBlondNYC 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree his decision to accept it was 'bizzare' to put it mildly. But seems to minor an issue for this article. Perhaps in a subarticle Nil Einne 19:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue does not seem to rise to the importance of the article. Agreed with Nil Einne. The Evil Spartan 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purple Heart Controversy

message: :Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sealtexas.jpg

message: "Bush denied having received warnings about the possibility of floodwaters breaching the levees protecting New Orleans." This is true.
In the videoconference, whether the levees would be "topped" or not, was mentioned as a "grave concern". That means overflowing, with water spilling over the top of intact levees. "Breaching" means breaking of the levees. The record does not contradict Bush's denial.
I remember when the tape was leaked. It was completely unauthorized, and was a transparent attempt to show Bush being "caught in a lie". The specific controversy fizzled when the distinct definitions of the words were pointed out.
The inclusion of the episode in its current form in the article implies that the "caught in a lie" viewpoint is fact. That is pathetically biased, and should be revised to clarify the point, or be deleted entirely.
67.160.141.110 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the New Orleans levees were breached, and Bush had only been warned they might be topped? The difference seems a bit subtle to me (you'd think the leader of the USA could infer the difference) - however, it may still be worth mentioning in the article. The Evil Spartan 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Breaching" and "overflowing" or "topping" are different events 

message: Image:ABCNews Poll-Approval Rating-George W Bush.png|President Bush's approval rating from April 2001 to June 2007. ABCNews Poll.
Image:Newsweek Poll-Approval Rating-George W Bush.png|President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Newsweek Poll.
Image:‎Gallup Poll-Approval Rating-George W Bush.png|President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Gallup Poll.
I made those  graphs. You can add them to the main article if you want.--Jean-Francois Landry 15:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Though it would help if you could source it better. It's also, IMHO, a touch misleading to make the graph since 9-2001, as the president's ratings were artificially high due to the WTC attack - however, it would certainly be useful to add a graph since the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The Evil Spartan 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you redo the graphs starting with his inauguration? Gonezales 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could add 2 more poll on the ABC graph but I would lose in data homogeneity("approve somewhat" and "disapprove somewhat" data are unavailable). You can look at the ABCNews link below.--Jean-Francois Landry 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Approval Rating Graph 

message: Barney has his own dedicated web page on the white house web space and is not mentioned in proportion to his importance to the Bush administration on this entry.
:On the contrary, this lovable mascot of the presidential family has his own article: Barney (dog). Silly rabbit 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient reference to Barney (his dog) 

message: [] this data should be added to the article, just as significant a even larger majority suports the Impeachment of the VP.
:Well, I can't see this video, but if it's Keith Obermann, then he's had an axe to grind with the president for a while, and we'll need much more reliable sources. The Evil Spartan 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, it's already mentioned within the "Domestic perceptions" section, referenced by a poll conducted by American Research Group, Inc. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Polls show a Plurality of Americans suport impieachment procedings against bush

message: Under the 'childhood to mid-life' section there is some misinformation about our presidents history. For example: Bush recieved a Bachlor of Art degree? That's a lie. The truth is that he recieved a Bachlor's degree in history. Read this and compare it to the current 'childhood to mid-life' section.
President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Following graduation, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father’s successful 1988 Presidential campaign, President Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998.
This is the truth. Look it up. --Lionheart65 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change and provided a reference. I'm not sure which is correct, but the White House biography simply identifies the degree as a Bachelor's degree, so that's how I've altered the wording. It was likely just an oversight. - auburnpilot talk 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The point about consecutive four-year terms is unimportant.  As for the degree, I don't understand the foregoing discussion.  There are Bachelor of Arts degrees and Bachelor of Sciences degrees, both called "bachelor's degree".  To say that Bush got a B.A. doesn't mean he majored in Art.  Anyone in the United States getting a bachelor's in History would, in my experience, have a B.A. JamesMLane t c 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not quite.  It depends on the institution and the classes that comprise one's degree plan.  For example, all midshipmen at the US Naval Academy receive (or did when I was a mid) a BS, even those that major in engineering or the sciences.  That occurs because the curriculum is so heavily based in science classes for all midshipmen (they all take Calc III, two semesters of physics, two semesters of chemistry, etc.).  --ElKevbo 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that I'm unfamiliar with the curriculum at Annapolis, but I believe that that is true because even if you major in a liberal art (English, for example), the core curriculum of the academy is in the sciences, so you will have taken many science classes by the time you graduate. (I just reread your comment and see that you already said all that). But this is certainly an exception to the rule. If you graduate from Yale with a degree in history, you will receive a BA. Faithlessthewonderboy 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this source is a satirical blog and is inappropriate for the main article, I think the transcript in it is real. If you enlarge the transcript, you can make out that it says BA in History awarded 6/10/68. My reason for believing the transcript to be valid is that it says his cumulative GPA as a Yale undergraduate was 77 with SAT scores of 566 verbal and 640 math, which is discussed elsewhere on this page as being true. Pericles899 05:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yale degree

message: The figure of 100,000 is not from the cited source, and is irrelevant anyway, since ther was NO national waiting list.  The only relevant question is: How many others applied for the same slot as interceptor pilot in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard?  Answer: None.
Gatr 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Guard service 

message: I just added an unreferenced comment about his absence from the 2006 influential people list on Time, but I am unable to access the article, not being a subscriber. Could a subscriber refrence it for me?
Vixwald 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME 

message: Under the Governer of Texas section it should be added that President Bush became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998. It's an important part of his life (changing history and all) and should be included. --Lionheart65 19:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor of Texas 

message: WHY,  WHY this has NOT been discussed disturbs me almost as much as the subject matter at hand.
FACT: President George W. Bush has appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices.  One of his appointments was for CHIEF Justice. Last time I checked there are only 9 Justices on the bench. His appointments have and will exert a great impact on the face of this nation for decades to come.  There should be discussion on how the courts have been slanted heavily toward conservatism.  This discussion will highlight what Bush's actions have on the fabric of this nation.
Furthermore, does the Supreme Court represent the will of the people.  In the event the courts pass judgment on society that are perverse, then where does society turn to for answers ?? The energy of multiple issues will not vanish, because a Conservative President has dictated societies will.  Society will respond, and possibly in a violent action.
I apologize for my liberal leanings, however I am a firm believer in the rule of law.  I think that Supreme Court Justices are just as important as the myriad of issues cited for President Bush.
Please look into this matter.
Thank You,
Backspan 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a mention of the supreme court justices he's nominated, and probably a mention that both have a more conservative leaning; though I would probably not put it in the article the way that you've said it. We have to be careful about how we phrase it; many people (myself included) happen to think the recent apointees did more to make the court centrist, compared to the left-leaning mess that was there before (if you don't think the previous court was left-leaning, then try paying attention to who in the media was complaining about it more). In any case, this isn't the place to talk about the politics. Do you have something specific to add? The Evil Spartan 23:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There ought to be a mention of his appointees, sure. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reputable source claiming that this made the Court more conservative, true as it may be. Nor am I convinced that the political leanings of his appointees is relevant to this article. And I'm as liberal as they come, so you know I'm not biased in favor of Bush. Also, Backspan, the Supreme Court was created so that there would be a branch of the federal government which was in no way answerable to the people. This is so that they can make decisions without fear of upsetting a constituency. But there are a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that the Court does not wield too much power. Indeed, that goes for all three branches. Faithlessthewonderboy 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supreme Court apointees can be found at Presidency of George W. Bush.--Southern Texas 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not an American but I've people commentating on how Bush has made the court more conservative. BTW, if the court moved from being 'left leaning' to 'centrist' then it became more conservative. (Both are arbitary lines in the sand anyway and there is no way complaints in the media are really going to establish where the lines should be) Nil Einne 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A few sources  . Really I'm surprised it's possible that an American hasn't heard that the Supreme Court has taken a more conservative twist. Other then the fact it's extremely obvious, from memory and a quick Google it appears it's something that's talked about a lot, especially given that this is likely something that will have a very long legacy (which is also something talked a lot about). Nil Einne 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, Backspan, I think you're still missing the point. You said that "Justices must understand the will of the people to be great justices." But understanding the will of the people is of no concern to the Court, and it was specifically designed that way. They are appointed without the consultation of the people, and use their legal expertise to make correct rulings, not popular ones. That's why they're appointed instead of being voted into office, and why they hold life-long terms. We pay them because they're smarter than us and deal with issues that the average person doesn't understand and whose opinion is irrelevant. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, this isn't a forum on the subject (please see the banner at the topic). This is to propose changes. The Evil Spartan 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court Justices 

message: The actual facts of this person should remain in this article. As I was reading, I began to notice severe bias and complaints about the president. No matter what the political party, the Wikipedia is NOT a place to spew your rants and views. Its supposed to contain facts.
Noted directly from the POV link. 
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are not many if none of those kinds of sources in this article. I recommend a complete check of this article. If you wish to rant about anything at all, it should all remain on the talk page, away from actual facts (eg. birth date of person)
-Nincb
--Marked Article POV Check--
Most of the bias can be found in the "Criticism and public perception" area.
:Do you have any specifics? This article contains nearly 180 citations, the great majority of which are from mainstream news outlets (BBC, CNN, NBC, New York Times, etc.). I can't say I agree with your assertion that this article has few to no reliable sources. - auburnpilot talk 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not everyone else's job to search for the bias you accuse this article of having, its yours.  If you can't be bothered to actually give any specifics, I'm going to remove that tag.--Mbc362 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I found out from a source that George W. Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 verbal, 640 math) and that his cumulative undergraduate GPA at Yale was 2.35.  Is this true?  I find it surprising that someone this mediocre can get away with being president.  --143.58.196.120 10:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is true, you're most certainly going to have to source it. The Evil Spartan 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low SAT and GPA true? 

message: CNN reported a few minutes ago that Bush is having an operation this weekend and invoking the 25th. Just a heads up - I'll add it nowSamaster1991 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you do anything make sure you spell Cheney correctly.--Southern Texas 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Bush transfer of power for previous transfer. - auburnpilot talk 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney becoming president 

message: I made some changes and already they have been reverted with what I call poor or no explanation...
* I removed the forced pixel count per the image section of the WP:MOS and a number FAC processes. This is to cater to the fact that different people have different screen resolutions, and instead of forcing a set pixel size (which appears differently on each screen), it allows people to set their own preferences. (see 'my preferences). Mine, for example, are set to 250px.
* I added 'upright' parameters to portrait ratio'ed pics as this makes the same size as the landscape pic. Ie, if we have a portrait pic with the same horizontal size as a landscape, the portrait is, obviously, much bigger than the landscape pic. The National Gaurd pic near the top of the article is a good case in point. Ie, it's way to big, even though the horizontal is the same.
* I worked on the poor paragraphing in the lead. No change in content or order, just compressed 7 or 8 paragraphs into a much more palatable 4 paragraphs based on content. see WP:LEAD.
* I removed the TIME magazine succession box. I just don't think it is that important to an article on George Bush - there are much more important things there. Also, why Time magazine? It's just a commercial venture and the opinion of it's editor - it's not a Noble prize or US presidency. If someone want's it back, please establish why it is important, and don't just point out I removed it (i know I removed it and I am not just going to take your word that it is important without explanation why). Or, if this has been discussed before, please point it out. cheers  --Merbabu 07:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various changes I made... 

message: Because the list is so long, I changed it to

But I thought perhaps the usage above may justify a template on its own. If you're interested, please discuss at Template talk:Reflist#Contained in a box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I originally stated when I reverted your initial edit: Yuck!  I hate that format and the very idea that we would seek to hide or reduce the perceived number of references.  It's a solution in search of a problem.  It complicates navigation for users with little benefit.  In fact, it's actually a detriment to hide references.  I'll wait for others to chime in as I've already reverted this edit once.  --ElKevbo 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support reverting back to a simple . I'm not sure how it's working for the rest of you, but this new "scroll box" forces me to use two separate scroll bars to view the references. It's really obnoxious to not be able to easily view the references. - auburnpilot talk 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with darkorange and ElKevbo and have reverted it back. Aaron Bowen 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is unfortunate that the column format doesn't work for a number of internet browsers. SGGH speak! 18:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference