Talk:George W. Bush

Gallup Poll Favorable Ratings

I found the Gallup article detailing favorability ratings of U.S. Presidents from Truman onward, and noted those results after the claim that Bush had the lowest poll rating ever. Collect (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could get into this. Given the Gallup polling methods during that time frame it was highly unlikely that 22% was actually accurate, but that's the number we have and I suppose we'll have to use it though in fact quite a few sources don't. It boils down to the margin of error, the 22% was +/- over 8 percent and the 28% is +/- about 3% so they statistically mesh a good percentage of the time. The 22% was also an outlier and the month before and after it were both significantly higher which if your a statistician means something I'm told. Bush has the lowest average approval rating of 29% again, +/- a slim amount (less than 2%) as opposed to Truman's average of 32% (+/- a larger amount) so it can still be said that Bush has a lower overall approval rating that Truman did. Truman tended to spike out with very low ratings and then stabilize in the mid 30% where Bush has had low ratings for very sustained periods (6 months +) now. But it gets overly complicated pretty quickly. Basically if I have approval ratings on a monthly scale of 35, 34, 36, 22, 33, 34, 34 or some such and you have approval ratings of 29, 28, 29, 30, 29, 29 which one of us is more popular? Additionally, Bush has the highest Disapproval rating (69% to Truman's 67% again with that accuracy thing I mentioned above). That sentence probably needs changed to something like. President Bush's term in office has seen the largest spread in change of public opinion of any President with a high of around 90% immediately after 9/11 to the lowest sustained approval rating of 29% in his second term. Bush has had the largest spread of any President and that's noteworthy. He has had the highest and that's noteworthy because it allowed him to get things passed that he wanted such as the Patriot Act. He has had the lowest sustained period of popularity and that is noteworthy because it prevents him from getting stuff he wants done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A claim was made which, om its face, was contradicted by Gallup itself. If you wish to say "greatest spread," that might be right. "Lowest" was, however, wrong. The added sentence was precise and correct. Collect (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lowest sustained is confirmed by Gallup so we can add that back in as well. RTRimmel (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Truman fact and put in another Bush fact. He has the highest disapproval rating on record so it is also precise and correct. RTRimmel (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be only fair to add that while Bush's low approval rating existed that his Democrat controlled congress was even lower at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.1.168 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Excepting that congressional approval, historically, is always lower in virtually every circumstance (and thus not notable at all) than the president and that this article is about Bush not congress, sure its fair. They have tied the lowest, and that certainly deserves to go on their page. RTRimmel (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Education information

Why isn't there an education information in his article? I think it would be rather consistent with other articles for the previous presidents.70.248.190.207 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Find that information here. SMP0328. (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2000 Election

The section: "As the election returns came in on November 7, Bush won twenty-nine states; one of the states was Florida. The closeness of the outcome led to a recount in Florida.[33]" is unwieldy. Consider changing to something like: "As the election returns came in on November 7, Bush won twenty-nine states including Florida. The closeness of the Florida outcome led to a recount.[33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.89.114 (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have changed the article to reflect such. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic collapse of 2008

The economic collapse we are currently undergoing is going to be one of the core features of the Bush Administration in the history books, just as Hoover is irretrievably associated with 1929 (whether fair or not).

It's time to put *something* about it into the article. I don't know what, though. 24.58.159.88 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence summary of the problem and what the adminitration has proposed. That should really be all that we say, though, because we have to be careful as events are still developing and will likely change (see WP:RECENTISM). In addition, this article is about George W. Bush and there is an article specifically dealing with this event. Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Grand Engineer? Rembember the Great Depression? Both were about President Hoover. Guess which one more Americans would associate with Hoover? George Bush's Presidency is going to be defined by 9/11, Katrina and this. In any other Presidency this economic collapse would be the only thing the President would be remembered for. (It is questionable that New York is going to remain the center of the financial world at this point... think about that, New York has been the defacto economic capitol of the world for the past 80 years) It will stand up to the 10 year test, or the 100 year test quite frankly. As the most significant economic event to have happened in the past 50 years, it needs more screen time... howver we should wait a short period of time to see what exactally happens with the 700 billion dollar bailout and the like. This is a terrible event. Katrina gets an entire section, any reasonable standard dictates that this event gets no less, especially considering that Bush favored the deregulation, and helped pass laws supporting deregulation, which can be considered a direct cause. RTRimmel (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That still is in violation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:SS. As of now, this is all that should be mentioned. If the problem is traced back to George W. Bush himself then of course this will become much more prominent in the article. But the events are still developing. And your statement of "George Bush's Presidency is going to be defined by 9/11, Katrina and this" is merely your own opinion. Happyme22 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regan's presidency is defined by the collapse of the soviet union. Lincoln's presidency is defined by the Civil war. Nixon's presidency is defined by watergate. But, you are probably right, those historians will gloss over the largest economic collapse of the past 80 years. No one pays any attention to trillions of dollars of debt. Obviously someone might have a crystal ball and look ahead and think that a 700 billion dollar bailout, largest in history, may be worthy of mention, but certain editors realize that this sort of ... average everyday 700 billion dollar bailout happens and that we unconconcerned citizens should ignored it! YEA! And the fact that Bush campaigned for, recommended, brought on Paulson as a treasury secretary knowing full well that he was very much in favor of signficant deregulation means nothing. For shame, trying to link someone who has advocated Deregulation and occupies the higest office in the land to a collapse caused by deregulation... I mean, people would think this article biased if you point out stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.111.57 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for sarcasm here. All that I am saying is that there is another article that deals specifically with this event. This article is about George W. Bush and, as I rightfully said above, if this event is traced back to the Bush administration and failures within it, then of course it deserves mention. And if the $700 billion government bailouts occur, that will deserve mention as well. But this article is not meant to provide an in-depth analysis of what is currently happening with the economy and who is to blame. Happyme22 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Unless there was a precident for it I suppose you would be correct unless a precident but without one of those on this very encyclopedia, I just can't see doing it. I mean, an assortment of Presidential articles discussing relevant issues that occured during their Presidencies seems rather silly when you talk about it. I'd use Iran-Contra to highlight it, but it seems to be rather buried and unlinkable from the Regan page... quaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.111.57 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how sarcasm seems to maneuver its way into your posts... I've already given my responses to your pushing, so I do not feel obligated to repeat myself. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. On the Reagan Iran-Contra issue, you will see that the affair is mentioned in the lead and given due weight in the article, with a link to a more detailed article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Bush bias

Hey happyme22, how much do they pay you?

Please note that I do not belong to any political party, nor do I support any party. I do realize this probably comes up relatively often, but if this is brought up a lot, the frequency should definitely show there is a problem.
The tone of the article definitely feels more like it glorifies George Bush. I noticed that, for the most part, that it labels much more of the negative comments as "alleged," and the supportive comments as if they could not be contested. Obviously, some of the criticism of Bush has no basis, and some of the positive aspects are certainly valid, but this article is much more supportive of Bush than it is objective.
I'm not particularly supportive of Bush, but I always try to approach politics with a neutral standpoint. I can't claim to be completely unbiased (very, very few people can), but I have actively supported neutrality in politics for many years, and have had a lot of practice blocking out my bias. I strongly urge the editors of this article to take a better look at this article, and try to make a more fair assessment of George Bush's presidency. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Happyme and others consistently edit the article in a fashion to make GWB look as good as possible. These conservatives have taken over the page and even true, verifiable, well-cited edits are chopped up or removed.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please specify examples of bias in favor of President Bush in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was my comment here in TALK about why the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war removed from this discussion and the article George W. Bush? That alone makes me think that someone is filtering out any thing that might reflect negatively on the Bush-Cheney Administration. DuBose (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your comment was, but if it was not a suggestion or part of a discussion solely for improving the article, it was removed for that reason. As for your contribution to the article, it has to be referenced in order to be included in the article, as this is a "good article".--Abusing (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a subtle threading to minimize the man's failures and maximize his accomplishments, that's my opinion. Factually, lets look at the Hurricane Katrina section. The most noteworthy, often repeated, comment is Bush's quote of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Its ironic, because by any standard the job he did was miserable. I saw that sentence in the article awhile ago and moved on, much like Mission Accomplished its a point of criticism around the president, Mission Accomplished (one of the focal points of Bush criticism is buried half way down the article, removed from the lead). Its also not in the section anymore because someone removed it. A sentence was left in the lead stating Truman had the lowest approval ratings in history for days. I replaced it with Bush's record highest disapproval and it was moved out of the lead within hours. The word significantly was added before Bush's economic performance in 2003, and the source didn't support that. I don't think there is an obvious hacking, but the subtle minimization of valid criticism makes Bush out to be better than he is. People are quick to jump on the articles of NPOV when anything hints of Bush's failures, but the same voices remain silent with anything pro-Bush comes in. I dislike the double standard. RTRimmel (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the section on No Child Left Behind shows it in a much more positive light than it should. The only evidence given supporting it as a success is test scores, and that is a very poor indicator that it is actually working. One of the major problems is that some schools don't have the money to hire proper teachers and decent supplies. Due to the financial problem those schools have, they are unable to teach their students well enough to raise test scores. The No Child Left Behind act denies funding to underperforming schools, which causes the schools who don't have the financial ability to adequately teach their students to get even worse. Also, I have been personally effected by school funding issues. The No Child Left Behind act doesn't address the major problem, which is that schools don't have enough money, even after funding through No Child Left Behind. My high school had one of the best music programs for public schools in the state (in the top five I believe), and they had to consider severely cutting funding for the music program because of their financial issues. this is after shortening school schedules, laying off teachers, and many other money saving actions. This was only a couple years ago, NCLB was well established by then, and my school's test scores were well above average. There are also many other factors harming education in the country that NCLB doesn't address, such as lowered standards to help make schools look better.

Well I'm sorry to hear about your school and your own personal loss, however Wikipedia has a strict policy that does not allow original research, meaning that all content in this encyclopedia needs to have come from third party, reliable sources. So if you can find a source for the funding issues, then some reference to it may deserve a mention. With that citation, you may also want to check out the No Child Left Behind Act article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-In the area where it says "... and has said that he has consistently noted that global warming is a serious problem..." consistently should be taken out, as his stance on it was never very consistent. In the citation, the president himself is the one who said he consistently said so, and that isn't a reliable source, considering politicians will say that kind of thing to save face.

Agreed, and I've changed the article to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-In the sentence "Despite emphasizing safeguards and remaining open to other plans, Democrats attacked the proposal to partially privatize the system." Attacked should be replaced with opposed. Attacked has a more negative nature, and therefore adds a more supportive feel to the the proposal. A more colorful vocabulary isn't as important as showing neutrality here.

Agreed, and I've changed the article to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-In the sentence "Hurricane Katrina, which was one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, struck early in Bush’s second term. the part saying "... which was one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history..." should be taken out, as it is not a fact, nor can it be proved.

Actually, it is a fact. See [1][2][3] Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-The word alleged should be used with more care.

How so? Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing one thing or another, but my main point is that there are some things in the article that convey a sense of opinion instead of fact, and that some references should be checked. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course neutrality is important. I am an administrator and principal author of the Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Pat Nixon articles (all featured) so I think I know a little something about NPOV. I do not think that the article is overtly biased in Bush's favor, however IP 66 raised some good points above and I thank him/her for doing so.

As for the Bush Doctrine in the lead: I have no problem inserting it into the lead, however the manner in which it was inserted, by User:DuBose, is unacceptable. Quote: "The Bush administration initiated the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war or "preventive" war in 2002 & 2003." First of all, the phrases Reagan Doctrine, Carter Doctrine or Nixon Doctrine are not encompassed by quotes, which implies a coined or unfamiliar term. Secondly, there is obvious anti-Bush POV, as the term preventive has quotes around it, but preemptive does not; that implies that preventive is a falsehood. Third, the war in Afghanistan began in 2001. Also, the word 'and' should be written out as 'and', not abbreviated as &. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the grammar or punctuation, then fix it, but don't remove the information. The Bush Doctrine is a fact of history and is also documented in Wikipedia. I can not believe the bias that we are seeing here. Peace, DuBose (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is is well documented in history, and you will see that the current page version reflects that. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong; the sentence as it stands at this moment is a manipulation of the truth. In truth, preemptive war was the justification of the attack on Iraq, and was not due to 9/11. You are starting to do a swiftboating of this history. The preemptive war on Iraq was justified by false and misleading intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, which the UN weapons inspectors had repeatedly denied existed and begged the Bush-Cheney administration to tell them where these supposed WMDs were located. I reject your analysis as historically valid. DuBose (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made no analysis as far as I know... the WMD controversy is discussed in the "Iraq" section. Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a NASTY pro-Bush bias: there's a section titled "Civil liberties and terrorist detainees". That should, of course, be "Civil liberties and detention of *alleged* terrorists". One of the main issues is, in fact, the question of whether detainees are terrorists or not -- in many cases the only evidence that they are is allegations by the administration! It's quite true that "allegedly" is being used only for criticism of Bush in this article, and not when it is appropriate but would look bad for Bush. If you want to go further: "President Bush has consistently stated that the United States does not torture." Given the absolute proof that the United States has been torturing, cited in the Waterboarding article, that should be "has consistently claimed". 24.58.158.178 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a statement by the president. Whether or not his statement is factually correct is up for debate. Think of it this way: the president gives statements to reporters, etc.; this was one of those statements. Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The pro-Bush bias is clear and there is an attempt to manipulate the history here to exclude the Bush Doctrine, and the actual meaning of that doctrine. One time they remove something because it is not an exact quote, next they want to put in a milder statement that is also not a quote. They are starting to look like the swiftboaters... makes me wonder why they don't use their real names. DuBose (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the article Bush Doctrine. In the introduction, it reads,

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq); a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way."

From this we gather that the doctrine was introduced after 9/11, not in 2003, to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, so that needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the article describing the Bush Doctrine uses the phrase 'preventive war' as opposed to 'preemptive war'. Since the article on Wikipedia that contains all details of the Bush Doctrine uses the word 'preventive' then that is the word that this article should use as well. Now I would like to remind everyone of WP:LEAD, which directs editors to make the lead a summary of the article and give each subject proper weight within it. Bogging down the lead about the Bush Doctrine and what it contains, why it was written, and what purpose it serves is not in our best interest, and especially not in the best interest of the article. It certainly deserves mention in the lead, however per WP:LEAD and WP:V, I propose something similar to this, which links to the article and gives readers something to click on to read more if they are interested, but saves the details for that article. It also keeps facts in check regarding the War on Terror and both invasions. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While the article about “the Bush Doctrine uses the phrase 'preventive war' as opposed to 'preemptive war' (your words) may use the phrase “preventive war;” the fact remains that a Doctrine that advocates military action against other nations’ actions “before they are fully formed” requires a judgment call by the administration; and is a subtle difference of semantics in this context. Perhaps the descriptive term “premeditated” would be more appropriate.

The issue of documenting the chronology of the events is necessary in an encyclopedic history. The fact that the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, preemptive war, or premeditated war was declared or published on September 17, 2002, a year after 9/11, and six months before the invasion of Iraq is important to the history and how a reader may interpret what happened. To meld the relative time intervals tends to make the reader confuse or merge the premeditated invasion of Iraq with 9/11 and the military action against Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan… which is a manipulation of the history. Peace, DuBose (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Any reference to any version of the Bush Doctrine should refer to all versions of it. To me, "preemptive war", "preventive war", and any other similar phrase, to describe the Bush Doctrine is original research. SMP0328. (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the use of "preemptive war" is original research. A GOOGLE search on "preemptive war," in quotes, brings up 298,000 hits, including the Washington Post, NYT, and our own beloved Wikipedia Preemptive war. Preemptive war is now in the common vernacular. Even George W. Bush spoke of “preemptive action” at West Point, and “act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.” To split hairs over phrases in common use is useless. DuBose (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it's more helpful to describe the Bush Doctrine (all versions) than to simply refer to it as "preemptive war". "Preemptive war" is not a clear phrase. That's probably one of the reasons there are multiple versions of the Bush Doctrine. Better to give a clear description, than use a vague phrase. SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, use a clear description, but not in the lead of this article. Per WP:LEAD and WP:V, it is suffice to mention or link Bush Doctrine in the lead, as was done here. This is not the place to describe the Bush doctrine, be it preventive war, preemptive war, premeditated war, or what have you because WP:LEAD tells editors not to put too much undue weight on one subject. The lead is supposed to provide a general overview of the subject, in this case the entire life of George W. Bush. If we want to hammer out details of how to describe the Bush Doctrine, we can do so that-a-way. Happyme22 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Introduction a note that there are multiple versions of the Bush Doctrine should included with any reference to that policy. That should be enough to avoid confusion in that part of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple versions? What are you referring to? I know of only one version of the Bush doctrine, but there are different terms used by different people to describe the purpose of it. How about this: we implement this, as it correctly identifies the timeline of the foreign policy events and a link to the Bush Doctrine. Interested readers can click on the link and read more about it. That satisfies WP:LEAD, is factually accurate, abides by WP:NPOV, and seems to be a pretty good compromise. Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple versions of the Bush Doctrine. So simply referring to the "Bush Doctrine" is vague. SMP0328. (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that for our job (mentioning it in the lead) it is suffice to say 'Bush Doctrine' or as I propose, a link to Bush Doctrine, as that is the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject and most common term. However, in the article Bush Doctrine, feel free to bring up there being more then one (very interesting -- you learn something new everyday!). Happyme22 (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush term ends

Hi, I was wondering how this article knows for sure that Bush will cede power on January 20, 2009. Just wondering. 74.66.16.253 (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in the constitution. I have no doubt that President Bush will indeed welcome the new occupant of the White House and leave himself. Happyme22 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I in the future I may not allow my students to use Wikipedia as a reference any longer. I see a clear bias in how things are deleted and edited here. I can see that Wikipedia isn't a give and take about the grammar or specifics of history that I thought it was; it is the way of a few who spend a lot of time here or the highway.

Stem cell research in this article again

I am inserting some comments into this pasted text from the source. My suggested edits are in CAPS. This needs edited for factual error. I would be happy to add sources and correct, but do not have the ability because the article is locked.

Federal funding for medical research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos through the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health has been forbidden by law since(SHOULD REALLY REFERENCE THE DICKEY-WICKER AMENDMENT HERE BECAUSE IT IS THE RIDER ON THE BILL THAT PROHIBITS THIS) the Republican Revolution of 1995.[101] Bush has said that he supports stem cell research, but only to the extent that human embryos are not destroyed in order to harvest additional cells.[102] On August 9, 2001, Bush signed an executive order (NO EXECUTIVE ORDER, ONLY SAID THIS IN AN ADDRESS. THE CITED SOURCE IS FACTUALLY CORRECT, ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE IS NOT) lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells,[103] but the ability of these existing lines to provide an adequate medium for testing has been questioned. Testing can only be done on twelve of the original lines, and all of the approved lines have been cultured in contact with mouse cells, which makes it unlikely the FDA would approve them for administration to humans.[104] On July 19, 2006, Bush used his veto power for the first time in his presidency to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The bill would have repealed the Dickey Amendment(THIS IS FALSE. IT WOULD NOT HAVE REPEALED DICKEY, BUT WOULD HAVE PERMITTED FEDERAL FUNDING OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH ON ALL CELL LINES. BEFORE THIS, ONLY THE 21 APPROVED BUSH LINES WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE. DERIVATION OF CELL LINES USING FEDERAL DOLLARS WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CELLS WOULD HAVE TO BE DERIVED USINF PRIVATE OR STATE FUNDING.), thereby permitting federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.[105] (Mperoski (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

The article is semi-protected. If you are using a new account, you need only wait a few days before you may edit such articles. SMP0328. (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article history at G.W. Bush

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 10#George W. Bush/Compromise → George W. Bush it was decided that George W. Bush/Compromise should be deleted, but in order to keep the article history for GFDL reasons, the page should first be histmerged into a redirect (material from that page may be in this article). I have histmerged that page into G. W. Bush, which had only one revision before the merge. delldot ∇. 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Polls

Three reputable recent polls show lower approval ratings than Gallup. These should override Gallup, so I mentioned them. Other polls show historic lows of 22% or even 19% and deserve a mention.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Gallup accuracy and you quickly find out that they are not nearly as... accurate as they used to be. They are modifying their methodology to make their polls more sensational (and that's the polite way to say it) so they no longer have the gold star credibility that they used to for those in the know. Other polling organizations, including some that are listed presently, are more accurate and so they should be included instead of having an artificial goal of only Gallup. I know I have been a big Gallup supporter in the past, I have been reviewing polling results and they were among the least accurate that got it right in 2004 (not even in the top 10 which is saying something, certain university polls got MUCH closer than they did) and their numbers have been consistently higher/lower than others(others which specifically have proven more accurate). Alternatively, if you really want to keep them I'd suggest the 69% disapproval as it is the highest disapproval they have on record (which was in the Lead and got pushed down into public perception, then again so did Katrina, Mission Accomplished and virtually every other significant thing Bush has been involved with in the lead). Either way, we need to lose the artificial Gallup bias we have now in place of including more accurate polls. RTRimmel (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All polls are bias and cannot possibly adhere to NPOV and WP:Bias.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RTRimmel. Gallup is no gold standard, and it's oversampled Republicans for years if not decades. Happyme and others would just prefer to use whatever poll lists the highest approval rating for Bush, I imagine.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I take all polls with much more than a grain of salt. I suggest the article either refer to no polls or multiple polls from reliable pollsters. No one pollster should be considered the be all of how the people feel about anything. SMP0328. (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have several points to make here. First off, in the lead of this article we have chosen to go with polls conducted by the Gallup Organization, perhaps the most reputable and trustworthy polling agency in the world. There we give two numbers: a high and a low according to Gallup. Since we have chosen Gallup, it would be inconsistent and wrong to give other polls there, too. Simply because other polls may give a slightly lower number does not justify them "overriding" the Gallup polls, as you suggested. Back in March, when I was working on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, it was agreed that we stick to polling organizations when citing poll numbers of Barack Obama, rather than using those from newspapers/news organizations (i.e. NYT, CBS, WaPo, Fox, CNN, etc.) "though ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and even FOX/Opinion Dynamics polls show 26% for the same period, and other polls show historic lows down to 19%" is simply prolonging the idea that Bush is a bad guy. "Even Fox"? What is that supposed to mean other than Fox has a right-wing bias? Unacceptable.

Secondly, please take a gander at WP:LEAD. The lead is to be a concise summary or overview of the entire subject at hand, in this case the life of George W. Bush. WP:LEAD instructs editors not to weight down the section in certain areas, in this case the polls. Two sentences for the polls are too much, considering that many other aspects of Bush's presidency (for example PEPFAR) are not even mentioned. And I'm okay with PEPFAR not being mentioned as long as the principle of a general overview holds constant. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)