Talk:George H. W. Bush/Archive 2

message: There's a lot of sloppy English in this article. "Nixon appointed Bush to United States Ambassador to the United Nations" for just one example. Maybe when a page is 'protected against vandalism' a note could be put at the top of the discussion page explaining this? I'd like to know what this illiterate stuff has to be protected against. What was the vandalism - references to the perhaps unpalatable theory Bush was involved in the Kennedy assassination and ordered the assassination of John Lennon, that sort of thing? Or was it genuine vandalism like deleting chunks and writing obscenities?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.219.217 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloppy writing

message: I think this section has some irrevelant material that is also erroneous.  In particular, it states that federal tax revenues doubled during the Reagan years, and then cites an article from the CATO Institute.  I just reviewed the relevant pages and table in that article.  The clear implication of the article is that if Bush had just left the individual income tax rates alone, federal tax revenues would have soared.
While "federal revenues" did in fact double during the Reagan years, individual income taxes accounted for less than half of total revenues.  The revenues that really soared duing the Reagan years included social security taxes (which were raised during the Reagan years), medicare taxes (ditto), corporate income taxes and other forms of revenues.  
Individual income taxes only grew by about 12% during the Reagan years, much lower than for the periods preceeding and following the Reagan years.  Look at the table in the CATO Institute study to see for yourself.
If the editors of this article are Reagan-worshiping tax-cuts-at-all-cost fanatics, what I've just said won't make any difference.  On the other hands, if the editors are interested in an accurate article, they will make the appropriate revisions.
64.94.224.248 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 Re-Election Campaign 

message: Other more recent president bios show major at college. Probably would be useful to have here too. Anybody know what it was?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhemmen (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search turned up the answer. I posted one source, but there are many. Justin stocks 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George HW Bush major at Yale? 

message: I thought he did for a time.
-G
: Yes, he did.  He was Director of the CIA at one time.  It's mentioned in the 1970's section. Arx Fortis 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So he never worked in the CIA?

message: just on a sideline, does anyone know why these maps show the republicans in blue and democrats in red when it was the other way around for the last 2 U.S. elections? just kinda weird how both parties can switch colours in only 8 years --Danlibbo 01:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think traditionally red and blue were used to the challenger and incumbent respectively until they somehow got fixed on Republican=red and Democrat=blue.GordyB 19:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Red state vs. blue state divide JPotter 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "most people?"  The colors don't matter, as neither officially identifies either party.  Remember to maintain a neutral point of view.  24.124.109.67 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  election maps 

message: The following statement is incorrect:
"The first modified \'\'Nimitz\'\'-class aircraft carrier George H. W. Bush-subclass will be named USS \'\'George H. W. Bush\'\' when it is launched in 2008. [16]  "
The carrier was launched October 9, 2006. http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/bush/photo_gallery_construction.html
:Thanks for noticing that. I've fixed it. In the future "be bold" and make the correction yourself. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carrier

message: I removed the following section
"As a student at Phillips Academy, Bush learned of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941."
Seemed pretty unnecessary, unless there was something noteworthy about it.  I would expect just about everyone alive learned about those attacks on December 7th. Regoarrarr 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl Harbor 

message: Hey! I thought you are stealing Ronald Raegan's line here!--Darrendeng 09:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read My Lips No new taxes 

message: Under Post-Presidency
'In April 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service allegedly attempted to assassinate former President Bush via car bomb during a visit to Kuwait.'  A link to the following article by the highly credible and mainstream Seymour Hersh should be added.  I cannot, it is locked.  But perhaps someone else can. Maybe 'Iraqi Intelligence Service allegedly attempted to assassinate' should be the link?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/020930fr_archive02?020930fr_archive02
Denghopper 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  allegedly attempted to assassinate 

message: Article quotes GHBush explaining his line of reasoning to troops. That same reasoning is expanded upon in the co-authored book A World Transformed. A reference to this could probably be made. Snopes has the relevant passage
A nice quote that might be relevant given GWBush ignored his example: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
-------------
I've expanded the section on the Gulf War. I also shortened the quote section about not deposing Hussein, leaving the explanation of it and the first quote. (The section about the Gulf War should be mostly about the Gulf War, not a commentary about the second Iraq war.) Dreadengineer 04:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for not occupying Iraq/deposing saddam

message: I reverted the info from realnews.org for the sole reason that I am not sure they would be considered a sufficient source under WP:BLP. Bush has always denied any relationship with the agency prior to '76 and I am not certain that that source is sufficient to rebut his assertions. I would have kept it in and then had the discussion, but according to BLP it is suggested to revert first then have discussion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. If I post with cites that reference the CIA docs directly, do you think that makes the post ok? I trust your judgement. It'll be interesting to see if there's any more news on this.Joegoodfriend 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally the citations to the CIA documents wouldn't be as much as a problem. But since it's being used to contradict a position of the subject who is still living (and as such is arguably negative) then you probably can't use them and satify BLP, either. I'd just wait and see if it is picked up by some of the more reputable MSM. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is not being picked up or expanded by any MSM, so I guess that's it for now. Apparently, this is meant to be a tantalizing 'hangout' of information by researchers working on a book. Joegoodfriend 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Official CIA documents, assuming they genuinely do contradict the claims of the living person, should be more than sufficient to satisfy BLP. The purpose of BLP isn't to sweep things under the rug, it's to prevent articles about living people from propagating false information about their subjects. Negative information is allowed if reliable sources support it, and the CIA is surely a reliable source. 71.203.209.0 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zapata and CIA

message: A while ago I removed the signature from the infobox because it was that of George W. Bush.  I don't know what people have been using as sources for the other presidents, but can somebody add it? —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears there is a wrong signature again... --Tigga en 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: So, is Mr. Bush from Greenwich, Connecticut, Maine, Norfolk County, Massachusetts, or Midland, Texas?  I'm trying to reduce down some of the pages at Special:Mostcategories and this is right at the top of the list. 
I've removed "People from Massachussetts" as "People from Norfolk County, Massachusetts" is a subset of this. 
I've removed "Americans with Huguenot ancestry" as there's no reference to this in the article. Proto::► 10:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I'm not arguing, but the first line about GWH Bush is just political propaganda. I'm from Italy, not american, and often use Wikipedia as a source for my researches or attempts to improve the knowledge about facts I'm not fully or even partly aware of. I find really disgusting addressing a president - on the very first line of his biography - as a cocaine dealer.
I'm not his lawyer, nor am a supporter of him and/or his son, but would like to find here real information. Thanks to the writer of the article for informing me and the whole world that this former president has been involved in a drug trial, but I do think that it would have been more proper writing it in the list of facts, NOT at the beginning. As far as I know, he's worldwide known for having being one of the US presidents, not for drug scandals (which, I don't doubt, may have been nonetheless real).
On the other hand, it is as dangerous as if I were writing Fidel Castro's (it's just an example) biography, starting with: FC is a cancer affected and bearded man who killed and imprisoned thousands of people in his homeland... I'd better start with the story of him as leader of a revolution, then self-proclaimed president, then I would stress his friendship with Che Guevara and the "Pigs' Bay" facts, and ONLY after telling this I would express the dark side of his life (imprisonments, murdering of oppositors, etc.).
I hope everyone understood my feelings, which AREN'T AT ALL moved by political reasons, but for the sake of knowledge. Wikipedia is a huge source for everybody, not a "Larry King Show" where to express personal ideas: there's plenty of forums and chats and websites out there where to go to express one's personal positions.
Thanks for your patience and attention,
Guglielmo Gallesi, Rome - Italy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.6.211.109 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: occassionally, other users write in deliberately false information on wikipedia articles just to be funny. It's not a very good source out there because of this. It's a double-sided sword... I think you know this by now, but try not to take unsourced information as fact. --Evildevil 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocaine dealer??? 

message: Can somebody please correct his name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.150.57.0 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Above Picture 

message: These should be added for his terms in the US House, and as Chair of the GOP, CIA Director, Vice-President, and President. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.86.240.239 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secession boxes

message: I changed the sentence about allowing the other living former Presidents as honorary members of the World Trade Center.... blah// to "the other former Presidents living at the time" - as Former President Gerald Ford has past on... Hope there is no debate! Jgrizzy89 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  post presidency news and events 

message: President Bush is a good person. I like him very much. luv yah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.138.42 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pesident Bush 

message: What is the accepted format here? - an editor changed the name of Bush's successor from Bill Clinton, to William Jefferson Clinton, but the forgot to change his precedessor's name from Ronald Reagan to Ronald Wilson Reagan at the same time. Which is correct - fully spelt out name, or generally accepted short name? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format of Names

message: Why isn't his son Marvin Bush mentioned here?
:Heck, why isn't his mistress Jennifer Fitzgerald mentioned?K8 fan 22:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvin Bush 

message: Would a picture of the couple's burial site be appropriate for this article? Here are some pictures I found on Flickr that can be uploaded under the Flickr/CC Commons Attribution license. --Blueag9\talk 09:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burial site picture

message: why is it George H.W Bush rather than just George Bush? Like John Adams and John Quincy Adams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.102.42 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: H.W

message: 1) aircraft carrier  USS George H.W. Bush.  It might be more appropriate to say that it will be the LAST of the Nimitz-class carriers.  
2) there should be mention that he is extremely proud of the Americans with Disabilities Act which he signed into law.  (his son tried to dilute its power later).
3) there should be mention that he was a white Southern Republican Congressman who took a huge political risk by voting for the Civil Rights Voting Act. 
4) there should be mention of the book he wrote with Brent Scowcroft, "A World Transformed", and a quote from it: 
Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in
1998 why they didn't go on to Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the
invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
--Vasa2 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion on the first 3, but the 4th is worthy enough to include since it documents a clear position on a key topic that engaged his presidency and those of his successors.Gmb92 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  things worth adding to Bush article 

message: It is a tribute to the bias of Wikipedia against Bill Clinton, and in favor of Republicans, that Bill Clinton's wikipedia entry is slapped with a chapter entitled "Pardon scandals", but George H.W. Bush DOES NOT.  This despite the fact that Casper Weinberger (former Defense Secretary) and others were convicted in a court of law of crimes committed in furtherance of the Iran-Contra scandal; add to this the fact that George Bush took his pen and signed pardons for these convicted Iran-Contra crooks.  Perhaps this is not surprising, since prosecutors were potentially planning on cutting deals with these convicted men to give up names (some may leading to the White House) of their superiors giving them the orders, and additional information owed to the American people.
One thing you can say about wikipedia, which squawked on Bill Clinton's page about his pardon of Marc Rich:  There's no "liberal biased media" here on wikipedia.
:Yes, it is a telling example of bias. Some of Clinton's pardons may have been questionable in their wisdom (though not their legality; the President can pardon whoever he chooses for any reason, or even just on a whim), but he never pardoned anyone who was his accomplice in a criminal act like Bush did. That's a far more serious act, and deserves significant coverage in this article. 71.203.209.0 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardon scandals 

message: The citation from the Cato institute that Federal revenues nearly doubled in the 1980's is designed to perpetuate the myth that cutting taxes actually increases federal revenues. However that is based on "current" rather than "constant" or inflation adjusted dollars. In order to evaluate claims such as these you have to evaluate the latter figure.  US OMB data reveal that though Federal Revenues did nearly double in "current" dollars Revenues, it only incrased from $1.03 trillion to $1.29 trillion in constant 2000 dollars an increase of less that 30%.  From 1992 to 2000 Revenues increased to $2.02 trillion or an increase of 60%.  That is why a severe federal deficit in the Reagan-Bush Years was turned into a surplus in the Clinton Presidency.
:I was about to point out the same thing.  In addition to adjusting for inflation, we should also adjust for growth in the labor force (those available to work).  More people entering the labor force means more workers and more taxes collected, which results in increased revenues in any decade.  Labor force data can be found at BLS www.bls.gov.  In addition, note where the revenues were coming from.  The Reagan tax cuts were mainly on the income tax side.  Payroll taxes (FICA) actually increased.  The result is that the percent gains in revenues by far were from payroll taxes.  Page 3:  [].  The wording of this section also says something like "it was criticized at the time" which implies that history has vindicated the actions.  This is PoV.  Citing partisan sources like Cato is a reason why this section reads that way. Gmb92 06:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election of 1992 

message: I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page. --Jean-Francois Landry 17:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Approval Rating Graph 

message: There is no link to his mommy, Dorothy Walker Bush....it would be nice. 207.69.139.140 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Mother [[Dorothy Walker Bush]] 

message: Trivia and quotes is not why the subject was Important. I am going to factor out that stuff and try to make this at least a GA.--SallyForth123 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: I moved a lot of the trivia to a "minutiae" page. We now have five day to figure out what has to come back in (just because) and how briefly it can be dealt with. The puke thing gets one sentence. The post-office assassination plot gets one sentence. Broccoli and his religious faith get one sentence each.  Same for the ship.
THEN what we have to do is better understand the rest of his PRESIDENCY. Face it folks: he could have died in 1993 and this biography should not read much differently.--SallyForth123 04:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trivia  

message: Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
:This isn't a talk page for political discussion. keep this elsewhere.  do you have any other sources for this? Oldag07 11:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George H.W. Bush vs atheists 

message: It wouldn't be a bad idea to note, perhaps in the paragraph about the family members, that while many people mistakenly refer to him as "George Bush, Sr.," this is incorrect (and explain why). It's a common everyday mistake, both in the U.S. and in some foreign countries; for example, most of my Central American friends refer to him by the Spanish equivalent of "Senior."Lawikitejana 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mention of the common "Bush Sr." mistake? 

message: Also, the whole article needs a cleanup. --HanzoHattori 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of the Iraqi uprising controversy? 

message: Most Amazing Video Ever! Bush1 is reptilian! Pause a lot
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dwKcjRD1DNE&mode=related&search=  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.115.67 (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Icke said that these guy is a reptilian? Is this proof or not?