This is an archive of past discussions about George W. Bush. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Shouldn't the activity by John Conyers calling for the censure (and perhaps impeachment) of Bush be listed under the crticisim section? This seems significant. ADDED: sorry about the series of wonky edits. I'm a newbie and I broke some stuff on the talk page somehow which I seem to have fixed (somehow) Numskll15:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Being recognized as Person of the Year is not an honor, according to the magazine. Therefore, this does not belong under his "perceptions," unless to show that he is influential. I believe that it is critical to make this specific distinction by describing the title in this article.
True. Hitler was person of the year. ~~
--
Time Magazine selects its 'Person of the Year' as being the person who had the biggest effect on the year's news. This is even mentioned as such in the Wikipedia article on the magazine. Kilraven17:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The Bush article isn't an article on Time. If people truly want to know what the Person of the Year means, they can look at that article's entry. Squiggyfm17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
bush is clearly out of his mind get those dang troops outta iraq ya stinky head!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.252.171 (talk • contribs)
No the crusade is not over, we still need to convert the infidels.
Neutrality Banner
Shouldn't this banner be at the beginning of the article rather than at the end?
Worst Ever
Would it hurt to note that some historians consider him the worst president ever?
He made the cover of Rolling Stones as the worst president ever, that must certainly be relevant.
Rolling Stone giving the opinion that Bush is the worst president ever is akin to Better Homes and Gardens featuring a list of the all time greatest heavy metal bands. Not relevant one bit, considering the source.--Soulforge1910:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure...and the historians that lived during Lincoln's Presidency (and the Civil War, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the killing of thousands of Americans by other Americans) also considered Lincoln the worst ever...amazing how history gives us true insight doesn't it? If in 20-50 years, there are true Middle East style democracies...then we will see what Bush's legacy is.
Correct. Soulforge19 unfortunately is clearly a simplistic thinker.
Again, "Would it hurt to note that some historians consider him the worst president ever? With citations? Nothing we should notice, ignore it and maybe it will go away so we should wait 50 years before mentioning it? Meanwhile, we do note regarding Lincoln that "Copperheads criticized him for violating the Constitution, overstepping the bounds of executive power, refusing to compromise on slavery, declaring martial law, suspending habeas corpus, ordering the arrest of 18,000 opponents including public officials and newspaper publishers, and killing hundreds of thousands of young men who were soldiers in the war. Radical Republicans criticized him for going too slow in the abolition of slavery, and not being ruthless enough toward the conquered South." [1] and include a picture of this nasty poster. Anyway, it's hopeless, I added a section to that effect months back with an image of a "Worst Ever" poster, and first the section got deleted, then the image got deleted (without notification). The Bush whitewash squad.Gzuckier18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it hurt to say some people are losers desperate to trash the president? Okay, that was rude, but still. Why not try something else, like pointing out controversial decisions, or things he could have done better? Besides, show me a historian that considers Bush the worst ever, and I'll show you a biased shmuck. And besides, isn't worst an opinion? I'm pretty sure I learned that in first grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.246.255 (talk • contribs) 15:23, July 11, 2006
I'm sure. Good luck with that.
I'm puzzled... what is a "Middle East style democracy"? A country is either democratic or it is not. "Middle East style" is just a sneaky way of forgiving Middle Eastern countries for their near-universal failure to institute democracy. There is no "Middle East style". There are just successful democracies, and failed democracies. Most attempts in the Middle East have failed.
Furthermore, my best guess is they will continue to fail until the people of the Middle East get tired of it. The determining factor is not the gumption of the president of some country an ocean away, but how much appetite for freedom the people in the region have. If they really wanted to be free, they could have earned it the way we did: revolution. "Giving" people freedom is pointless. If they were ready for freedom, they would already have seized it.
As for Lincoln, he "kept the Union together", but after much study of American history I'm inclined to agree with his critics. Waging the Civil War did America more harm than good. It fundamentally damaged the attitude and character of American citizenship, in my opinion. The South could not have supported itself alone for long. It should have been allowed to secede much earlier, back when there was not so much political face to save. The ends cannot justify the means; what good is saving a Union if, to do so, you have to force people into it? I don't believe popular history has given "true insight"; if anything, popular history has whitewashed Lincoln. So if you wish to compare Bush to Lincoln, perhaps in twenty to fifty years opinions will only have changed due to another whitewash. Of course, serious students of history will still be able to learn about the less-pleasant details of President Bush, and their conclusions will be less rosy than the bubbly, superficial pap taught in high schools. Kasreyn04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The Southern states began to secede under Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor, so your complaint that Southern states didn't secede soon enough is not relevant to an assessment of Lincoln.. George Kaplan21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. A lot of the fault for the war does rest with Buchanan. I should have remembered that. Kasreyn21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Why are we discussing the American Civil War on the Bush Talk page? I definitely agree that stating that some historians are already naming him the worst president ever is relevent, but I don't understand how the American Civil War got into the discussion--Wakefencer
Wow...it sounded as if you just argued that some people don't want Freedom....amazing...simply amazing. People are so blinded by hatred of George Bush that they will actually argue that the Iraqi people don't want/deserve Freedom and that life was better in Iraq under Saddam.
Maybe you should reserve that assessment for 25-50 years from now, when the death rate in Iraq may perhaps have dropped to something not much higher than it was before the invasion. Gzuckier18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Its really scary how some REALLY think that Bush cares a f*** about the people in Iraq. But if you live in any country of the world, it must be hard to admit that your country is doing evil, because the evil deserves punishment. 200.95.132.22917:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)PEACEKEEPER
How can you objectively analyse the Bush Presidency while we ARE STILL in the middle of the Bush Presidency? You have no benefit of historical record and no benefit of context. Thus my comparison to Lincoln is relevant. At the time, he was considered one of the worst Presidents and now is considered one of the best. If in 50 years, Iraq is a flourishing Middle East democracy, it will be traced back to the Iraq War 2003...simple. You must have some perspective...remember, when the U.S. declared it's independence and started it's own democracy, Slavery still existed and even women could not vote for decades. Germany remained split for 40 years and Japan was in ruins after WWII. And now, 60 years later, they are both flourishing democracies...and they would not be had it not been for U.S. intervention in WWII. FACT. Trying to condemn Iraq as a failure after only 3 years gives no credit to the U.S. military and no credit to the Iraqi people, the majority of whom lived under oppression during Saddam's regime. Have some perspective.
Your argument is, basically, that people shouldn't judge Bush yet; and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't notice that people are judging Bush now. Does that make sense to anybody else?Gzuckier18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
btw, you believe waging the Civil War did more harm that good??? really? wow...tell that to any African-Americans you know and get their take on it. Jeravicious13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
lincoln didnt want to get rid of slavery, and the emancipation proclamation was merely for political purposes to keep the european powers out of the war as it didnt free any slaves in the union. states such as kentucky still had slavery all through the war and the only slaves that were freed were the ones in territory they didnt control. it wasnt until after the war that slaves were completely freed, and the government could have easily not gone to war. they could have simply passed a bill to abolish slavery, then waited for the southern economy to fail and let them all back in to the union as free states. 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It was probably a mistake on my part to open this can of worms. If you're really interested in debating it, one of our talk pages would probably be a better place. I wouldn't want to monopolize this one any further. Cheers, Kasreyn21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
You brought up a modification to the article. This is the place for that. It's not the place for rants about Lincoln and future historians. Gzuckier18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Giving" people freedom is pointless. If they were ready for freedom, they would already have seized it. Now that's arrogant. No wonder they call us Ugly Americans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubc0724 (talk • contribs) .
That's amazingly ironic. What I find arrogant is the high-handed presumption that the American way of life is the best, and that all the poor peoples of the world spend each and every day all a-quiver in their hovels praying for some good ol' all-American cowboy like Dubya to come "free" them. Arrogance? Americans hold the patent on it, and those who supported this war proved it amply. Kasreyn04:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote- "How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.
Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- [James] Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, [Herbert] Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance." title --Summer19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please take this immature shit someplace else? You both sound like idiots and none of this conversation has anything to do with the article. Thanks.Michael Dorosh05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who calls Bush the worst president ever is ignorant of history and appealing only to their dislike of the man, not his policies. I don't like Bush either, but I would prefer if people kept their complaints about him to the facts. If you're a Republican, there are many others that can be considered worse. If you're a Democrat? Nixon, possibly Reagan, Andrew Johnson perhaps, Herbert Hoover. And proper Libertarians would place Bush no higher than 4th on the all-time worst list. That said, let's get back to discussing the article. --Golbez20:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The question being whether we should note that there is a substantial "Worst President Ever" contingent, and whether we should
We can only note it if someone says there is. We cannot put 3 sources then say, "look! there's a substantial contingent!" And then of course we'll have to also put a counter from people who love him like lollipops. In other words, it's not worth the effort. --Golbez20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
God, this comment log is impossible to follow. How about stating that opinions of his presidency thus far are quite polarized, with some considering W to be a candidate as "worst ever", and then cite sources (although I doubt there are many complimentary pieces to the "worst ever" sources). Sidar23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
While I wouldn't say that he was the "Worst Ever" you could say that his popularity polls fell lower that any president the United States has ever had. The difference is that this is undisputed fact as opposed to opinion. However, I think this is already in the article. Alshain19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is worth noting that other presidents, like Harry Truman, had lower approval ratings during his presidency than President Bush. Truman's ratings went as low as 22% in the Gallup poll. It led to his decision not to run for a third term (being the last eligible to do so). He is now considered among the better presidents. Criddic23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Bush's poll ratings do not equate to his rating. Apart from the fact that rating a president is imho one of the most futile and irrelevnat things historians do it is worth noting that many presidents have had the opinions about them change over the years. Lincoln had no huge popularity among Americans at times, Truman, as noted above, had dismal numbers yet they are now ranked as pretty darn good ones. Eisenhower is an example of a president who was severely underrated in his time but opinions on him are rising and Reagan, well, I remember him being regarded as a failure and ranked in the mid 30's among presidents. Last time I checked a poll on the matter he was 6th and consistently ranked top 10 among polls I've seen. The Bush presidency isn't even at the 3/4 mark yet, how on Earth can his presidency be rated accurately by unbiased sources? Come back in 50 years with this topic.--Kalsermar15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Kalsermar, unfortunately, other people's emotional hatred cannot wait for a rational, intelligent and timely assessment. Jeravicious20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Someday, when the spread of Islam to become the dominant ideology of the world is finished, Bush will be looked upon as the instrument of Allah he so clearly is. Gzuckier17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be most accurate to state, "Gzuckier believes Bush to be the worst president ever." Not really relevant for an encyclopedia, but gets to the heart of this debate . . . . . people's opinions about Bush. --Jedunc 67.189.110.13102:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
We really should post the article with the opinion of the american public on Bush. That is all I want to say, because I don't see how that is not important in an encyclopedia. I'm sure someone will make a remake about that though. --Salem XIII10:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Polls change. Are you going to update this article every time a new poll comes out for the next 40 years just to see if he's still the "Worst Ever"? And which polls do we use? Do we have opinion polling information for other presidents? Something tells me we wouldn't be having this discussion if Bush's numbers were the "best ever" or even "average". Dubc072413:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is voicing out lots of opinions. It is not a real encyclopdia article anymore. I personally hate Bush, but that might not be some other people's views. People, write only facts, and maybe a few opinions on Bush's crazy attempts to go on war against Iraq, and now, probably North Korea. --Haha16916:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
People, write only facts, and maybe a few opinions on Bush's crazy attempts to go on war against Iraq, and now, probably North Korea. - Um, yeah, that's a good way to get people to stick to the facts rather than their opinions... :-) Dubc072416:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
We simply can't note that he may be considered the worst president. As someone said before, the American Civil War was extremely controversial when it happened. Half of the people in the Union wanted to fight it, and half wanted to recognize Confederate independence. Yet nobody today thinks that staying in the Civil War was a bad decision. The same may go for any issue currently in occurence. There will always be polarization, so to say that some people think he's the worst ever is unimportant. This is for FACT, not OPINION. We are not writing about the polarized and/or possibly radical opinions some people hold. We are writing about factual elements of his presidency, such as legislation, treaties, etc.
I am indeed saying "that people shouldn't judge Bush yet; and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't notice that people are judging Bush now", as Gzuckier put it. It's pointless. Anyway, many who edit this article seem so hateful of Bush they probably shouldn't edit here. Remeber NPOV? There are plenty of apolitical people who can make up for the loss. --CommKing13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, I'm sure there are still alot of people that couldn't care less if the southern half of the United States didn't exist. tmopkisntlka23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be perfectly fine to add in polls as long as you note the time of the study and who it was done by. You could add it under a new section, popularity. You would have to use the same poll over a period of time, and make sure not to misrepresent information. And for the record, Bush is an idiot. But, you can't just write that in an encyclopedia. That's something Bush would do. Oh, and would the blind Bush followers save us the whole "you're blinded by a hate of Bush" speech. We're not. But this isn't the place to argue about that. Oh, and at least have the guts to sign your name. Stop Me Now!21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, I wonder why so many people can not just write their criticisms of George W. Bush on a personal blog instead of on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a dirt sheet or critic's page. I doubt this page will ever be free again. So many people are in love with Dubya-bashing yet they'll praise a drug-addicted actor. User:Brighat 14:18, July 11th 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware enough of the poll figures but it seems odd to me that there are people so willing to quote about how Lincoln was so unpopular and then became popular and dispute that we should report that currently George W Bush is unpopular. The poll results for Hoover or Lincoln, the public opinion had to be recorded somewhere so that we would know today that they were unpopular or perhaps less popular than they have become. I think the progression of public opinion about GWBush during his presidency and later after as well is noteworthy.Omishark15:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that reporting on the president's poll ratings is noteworthy, and should be included in the article. I disagree that he should be labeled "The Worst President Ever" simply based on those ratings, since Truman had lower ratings and he clearly is not noted as the "Worst President Ever" because of those ratings. I agree that the comparison to Lincoln's popularity is valid - before (and even during) the civil war, Lincoln's actions were highly controversial, and there were even calls for his impeachment. I disagree that this aspect of Lincoln's presidency has any real relevance to the current article on George Bush, as Lincoln's final job performance and historical impact was something that was assessed decades after his death, and his popularity and approval grew as the true historical contributions of the man became apparent in the light of further events. History may judge that Bush has done well, or may judge that he has done poorly. However, as with Lincoln, this is a decision historians of the future will make, not commentators or writers of today. I would like to add the comment, however, that including his poll ratings as a graph is a double-edged sword, because the production of the graph is, by definition, original research. Data was gathered by an editor, formatted on a graph and presented in the article to show something that the original data did not. I agree that it is much clearer and easier to understand than the original source. however, reformatting the original source data in this manner fits the definition of "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data" as explained at WP:NOR and is original research. Xaa08:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Vacation Days 2000
This sentence is incorrect: "As of August 2, 2000, Bush had visited the ranch 49 times during his time as president, accruing 319 days away from the White House and nearly reaching Reagan’s eight-year record of 335 days in 5.5 years.[citation needed]". George Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 so the year on this date has to be incorrect.
35.11.38.5804:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Sayrah
The reference referred to the year 2005, according to [2]. I have since corrected the error (a.m.a.i.w.t.f.v.t.a.). Autopilots08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
All this talk about presidential ratings is ridiculous. The reason Bush is considered to be possibly the worst ever is the media. The reason so many have been influenced to this opinion is the media. Did we have such extensive internet, television, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc. during the terms of all other presidents? Did we have anything near the equivalent? It is a fact of life that the great people are the ones who are hated the most. Great people see a hard road ahead of them with failure and loss of popularity, and they take it anyway, even when there's a chance to turn back. I don't mean to say the George Bush is one of those people; all I'm saying is that anyone who takes the position of president, such an important role, is going to be hated by someone or other, and with media that is based more on opinion or agenda than dedication to truth, presidents in the information age will be more hated than any of the other presidents or leaders in history. Politicians are most hated of people in the world as far as I know, and that is because their task is so important. It's courageous to sacrifice your life and reputation to serve your country as current politicians are doing.
some_dude
Dubya?
Where does this nickname come from, if I wiki it, I just get a redirect to this page. --Ktp7209:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
From the article: "Among his family, he acquired the nickname "W" (for his middle initial; later Dubya, a literal spelling of a colloquial pronunciation of the letter), which later became a common public nickname, used both affectionately and pejoratively." --Easter Monkey10:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this entire talk page is an effort to find a civil alternative to personal attacks.
My POV on the ongoing debate
Well, this is just an opinion, and only mine, so I'm sure it's not "notable;" however, I'm going to insert it here. The point of the New York Times article is very simple:
Although it reports factual findings from previous articles, it is an opinion piece. As I've been told many times, "Wikipedia is not the place for opinions."
This being said, the Bush article can be restructured to present the factual premises as fact, and the opinion stuff as "related opinion."
To those who think that Rush Limbaugh's conservatism is equal to the Times's Liberalism, I disagree, to put it mildly. The Times is much more centrist than Limbaugh. A better comparison would be Limbaugh to Mother Jones.
To those who say the article on Bush is couched in right wing bias, I heartily agree. One only has to read the German Wikipedia pages to see the difference (I can read German, so I can tell). Now, I don't mean that we should only post Mr. Bush's shortcomings in the article. We should include any successes he's had in life, as well. In my opinion, however, there are damned few successes, if any.
I agree. If the Times' liberalism is equivalent to Limbaugh's conservatism, then what about Al Franken, Michael Moore, etc.? Are they WAY more liberal than Limbaugh is conservative? Nope. --Kahlfin20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to aggree with TheKurgan. The GWBush page is still larded with intermittent right-wing bias, although it's slowly improving, and is a lot better than it used to be. I realize that it's hard to deal with the Bush worshippers, who often claim that facts are "biased opinion", as "FairNBalanced" has amply demonstrated. Sometimes there are not two sides of an issue, but the "he-said she-said" style makes it seem as if there are.
Example: "Bush’s supporters respond that broad powers in the War on Terrorism are necessary to prevent major attacks against the United States [25] and that the president has not abused these powers. [26]"
Obviously the President has abused those powers: we already know that he sent an innocent Canadian to be tortured in Syria (Maher Arar), and threw out his lawsuit for damages based on an implausible "state secrets" claim; locked a US citizen up for years without bringing him to trial, only to admit that there was no particular reason not to bring him to trial (Jose Padilla); and those are just the most obvious examples.
Mentioning that Bush supporters believe that the President has not abused his power, without mentioning that they're clearly wrong, is in fact a biased presentation.
Isn't that for the courts to decide? Or the legislature even? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.196.171 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 June 2006
Another example. In "Foreign Policy", regarding the so-called "missile defense system". "The American Physical Society criticized this policy change, citing doubts about the system’s effectiveness. [45]" These weren't "doubts", these were certainties. Everyone who's looked into it seriously knows that the system doesn't work *at all*. It couldn't even work properly in tests which were *blatantly rigged in its favor*. This is pretty much covered in the APS criticism.
This would be incomplete information. The capability to hit an ICBM in boost phase has been demonstrated. Directed energy weapons are still undergoing development, and their potential is not yet demonstrated in full. You're talking about the difficulties of hitting the weapon during reentry phase? Versus technologically advanced weapons produced by Russia or China or less advanced weapons produced by other countries? There are certainly no "facts" to be stated in this respect. The report doesn't even come to any conclusions, so you are injecting your own opinion into this matter. While what is stated is the simple fact that the program is ongoing, whether or not it will ultimately work is pure speculation! http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/popa-studies.cfm—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.196.171 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 June 2006
Meanwhile, pro-Bush sections intermittently present opinion as fact. "A 1985 meeting with evangelist Billy Graham ultimately led Bush to devote himself to a more serious practice of Christianity [27], giving up alcohol, and beginning a pivotal phase in his life and career." Pure opinion, and hagiography too. Many would contend that Bush is not seriously practicing Christianity.
Many would contend we never landed on the moon, but I'm sure the astronauts themselves could tell you for certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.196.171 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 June 2006
Unfortunately, this renders English Wikipedia a poor source for current affairs information.
I'm not sure if there's any way within the Wiki medium to prevent the intrusion of anti-fact biases, though.
Incidentally, some improvements in coverage which could be made for the G.W.Bush page are:
(1) "signing statements": related constitutional and rule-of-law issues.
(a) Note that Bush applies these
differently from previous presidents; while previous Presidents used them to declare that they were going
to bring cases to court regarding constitutionality, Bush has used them to declare his intention to disregard
a law *without* bringing a case to court.
(b) Note that Bush applied such a statement to the McCain anti-torture bill
(Or link to a full-length article on the topic.)
(2) Add discussion of issues relating to the extremely heavy use of recess appointments
(3) Discuss the controversy regarding the constitutionality of so-called "faith-based initiatives"
(Or link to a full-length article on the topic.)
(4) Discuss Bush's illegal (in violation of FISA) domestic spying programs.
(a) Note that Bush specifically stated to Congress in 2001 that he did not want any further amendments to FISA.
(b) Note that he then started the programs in violation of FISA, without informing Congress.
(Or link to a full-length article on the topic.)
(5) Cover the administration's well-documented penchant for secrecy, and the criticisms thereof.
(6) Cover the administration's aggressive responses to people who disagree with them.
(7) Cover foreign reaction to the Bush administration.
(8) Cover the case in which Bush signed a "law" not passed by both houses of Congress.
Most of these deserve links to full articles. In some cases, the articles already exist, but the links aren't clearly arranged.
Since it is only an opinion that the president has engaged in unlawful activity or that he has abused his powers, I would not expect this site to use such rhetoric when documenting the Presidency of George W. Bush. If the courts and/or Congress were to judge that he did abuse his powers, then it would be of note. For example, if the House of Representatives impeached the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors" it would obviously have to be included. This is unlikely to happen, although not impossible at this point. There is no direct evidence to suggest that these claims are true, which is why the topic is controversial. Criddic01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection
Excuse me, but where is the new user who may have never edited Wikipedia before told that this page is the exception and not the norm when it comes to Wikipedia? I think that the semi-protection tag should be re-inserted in the article to make it very clear that the rest of Wikipedia is open. From what I see, there isn't even a tag on the talk page and the article doesn't even belong in the semi-protection category. Ronline?01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If the article is semi-protected, then the article has to say that. If people don't like the template been in, then unprotect the page. Leaving it semiprotected and then hiding the fact though not having a template is dishonest and not an option. FearÉIREANN\(caint)03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this is currently possible, but the way it should be is to inform potential editors that they cannot edit this page (due to semi-protection) after they click on the "edit" link. I.e. clicking on the "edit" link should bring non-eligible editors to a page that explains semi-protection and why they are currently ineligible. There should be no indication on the article page itself about the semi-protection - such notices are highly distracting for the huge majority of Wikipedia users who are readers, not editors. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedia, not to provide facilities for editors. Editing is a means to an end, not an end in itself, thus Wikipedia should be optimized for readers, not for editors. - Hayne17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree - whenever an article is not subject to normal Wikipedia editing/oversight processes (ranging from semiprotection to Officezilla) we have a duty to notify readers of this - in the same way that if a TV report is coming from a restrictive country the anchorman will often say 'This report has been monitored by Government X' to tell viewers that the content might be different from what it otherwise would be. I'm all for removing the padlock icon - after all, other 'content templates' (e.g. Template:Cleanup) do not have any icons at all, they simply state the problem with the article, and provide appropriate wikilinks if a reader wants to know more. Cynical20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Most readers (I'm guessing) do not realize that Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Most readers do not come in through the home page. Hence, if the main purpose of the template is to warn readers about some condition that they might otherwise not realize existed, then we should maybe have a template at the top of all articles saying something like "This article has been written and edited by volunteers. Since anyone can edit this article at any time and write anything they wish, you should not trust the factual content of this article - it might have been subject to vandalism that we haven't yet noticed." Most readers don't care about the editability of Wikipedia - they appreciate that the articles exist and they trust them without thinking about where they come from. It's not that I'm against the anybody-can-edit philosophy of Wikipedia - far from it, I'm fully supportive of it. What I'm against is the idea that the editability is the most important thing about Wikipedia. The most important thing about Wikipedia from the point of view of almost all readers is the articles. And from the point of view of a reader, the semi-protection notice is equivalent to having a phrase like "This article is under more scrutiny than most of the rest of our articles so it is less likely to have been vandalized" appended to the above hypothetical warning. It seems as silly to warn readers about this as it would to have that other hypothetical warning on all articles. - Hayne04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Signing Statements/Unitary Executive
Is anyone planning to add information about these two concepts into this biography. Granted, Bush was not the first to espouse this doctrine, but he is the first to take it as far as it has gone. JJ4sad620:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel that these subjects are better placed in one of the articles surrounding the controversies of his presidency, which I believe has already been done. As it is, this article is way too long to include everything that's simply notable about him; so we have to relegate information to other related articles whenever possible. DrLeebot13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Immigration Link
I have found an excellent source of information about Bush's Immigration Reform. The link should be included somewheres in the Immigration section 4.5.6. This is the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/
Maybe you could add a See Also section under the Immigration section, but I'd rather a link in the text itself.
The immigration "section" does seem like it could use some expansion, but adding a link in the article isn't how things are generally done (exceptions being references and when a word is linked wiki-like to another site). Preferably, someone should summarize what is said in this source and reference it. I'll get at it if I have a chance today. DrLeebot13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've gone in and expanded it and included the reference you provided. It could likely use some cleaning up by someone a bit more familiar with standards here. I believe that a brief note should be made about the claims of many critics that his plan to allow immigrants to stay amounts to amnesty anyway, but I left it out because I didn't have a link off-hand. DrLeebot13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Best moment in presidency was catching a fish
Should this be in the article somewhere? Bush told a German newspaper a few weeks ago that, since taking office in 2001, "the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5lb (3.4kg) perch in my lake." [3] Of course, that can't be true, since the largest perch on record in the US is under 5 pounds. He said the worst moment was 9/11. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-05-31 19:42
A president's own opinion about the best/worst moments in his presidency is not noteworthy in an article on him? How do you figure? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-05-31 19:48
I simply don't think this particular comment is noteworthy. I doubt he was serious when he said it. I could be wrong and I'll merrily abide by the group's consensus to add or not add the statement. --ElKevbo21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do you doubt he was serious? He said the worst moment was the 9/11 attacks. So, he was serious about that, but not about his best moment? On what are you basing this claim that he wasn't serious? Does anything in the BBC article indicate that? His full quotation was, "You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best. I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake." [4]. This makes it harder to see how he wasn't serious. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-05-31 21:03
Agreed - Bush seems to have given it some real thought... "You know, I've experienced many great moments, and it's hard to name the best... I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5-pound perch in my lake." bd2412T21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it difficult to believe that a US President would seriously say that his best moment was catching a fish. On the face of it, it sounds like a poor attempt at humor. Without further context it's difficult to know for sure. I'm just trying to assume good faith. --ElKevbo21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion. Fortunately, at Wikipedia, our opinions don't count for much. We simply report on what others have reported. BBC, Reuters, etc, all state his comment without attempting to discern whether or not he was serious. Why should we Wikipedians believe it necessary for ourselves to personally discern his seriousness before reporting on it? Personally, though, I find it hard to believe that he would joke about something like that while mentioning the 9/11 attacks. To jokingly say that your best moment was a fishing trip, and then say that your worst moment was a terrorist attack killing thousands, I think that would piss off a lot of people. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-05-31 21:20
I agree that the statement was insensitive and completely inappropriate. My only concern is that it is such a bizarre statement that I fear it may have been taken out of context. You've got good sources and my opinion appears to be in the minority so go ahead and put it in. If others disagree then that will clearly get their attention. :) --ElKevbo21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But from a certain perspective, namely, approval ratings, 9/11 was the best moment in his presidency. And I haven't seen any pictures of his fish. Kevin Baastalk21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok including it in the article, but whether BBC evaluated its seriousness or not, I think it's journalistically unethical to at least put some question as to whether or not he was serious. The man's a horrible president, but I doubt he truly believes his best moment was catching a fish, probably more an attempt at bad humor. --kizzle23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You know what? Good grief. Kizzle is right, a bad and probably inappropriate attempt at humor, but I say leave it out. George W. Bush is a lot of things, and whether you like him or not, and whether you like to go fishing or not, he is, after all, human. Even though his actions affect millions (billions actually) around the globe, not absolutely everything he does, says, thinks, or jokes about is notable, 100% of the time. So he made a lame comment about a fish in a lame interview. Who cares? I've never been President of the U.S. but I can imagine that being on the x where the buck stops when the world blows up would put a fellow under a bit of stress and make him want to just go fishing for a while. But can't we get over it and move on to far more important things? --Easter Monkey01:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, BBC and Reuters cared enough to write articles on it. That it is an attempt at humor, or is "lame", are both your personal opinions. The quotation still stands as a comment he made, and there is no indication that he was joking in the interview. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-06-01 02:24
The problem with your logic rests on the fact that attempts at humor sometimes are not reflected by a mere transcript, and sarcasm, unless blindingly Colbertesque, cannot by definition be discerned from a transcript alone. Knowing this, it is irresponsible for us to simply reproduce the statement as reflective of what Bush actually thinks. Yes, it is my opinion that I believe he was joking. But, it is also your opinion that he was not. Simply because it does not say in the transcript, "Ha ha I was joking," does not mean he wasn't joking. (whoah, triple negative). C'mon man, I hate Bush more than a lot of people here, but it's just plain irresponsible and almost Michael-Moorian to simply quote without giving context, such as he possibly was joking. --kizzle17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It was a joke and the "perch" is a mistranslation (English to German to English). It was really a bass ("sea Bass" in German translates to barsch which is translated back as perch.). The White House has an official transcript and even has <laughter> after the bass comment for the comically challenged. --Tbeatty02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the transcript? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-06-01 02:24
Ahh, found it. Well, that's settled. And I, for one, did not throw a hissy fit :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-06-01 02:28
I really was torn whether to respond or not, and I did see the smiley so I will assume good faith. But temptation obviously won out, so there it is. My "hissy fit" was more a commentary on the sorry state of our culture — 1) most people on both the right and the left taking themselves far too seriously 2) the general belief that a priori everything a politician, celebrity or pseudo-celebrity does and says has to be taken seriously and is thus inherently interesting and 3) that context doesn't matter. In any case, I, for one, do indeed have far more important things to worry about and have already wasted far too much time and energy on this one. --Easter Monkey06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Because if he's joking (as the White House transcript would indicate), it's not noteworthy. But on the other hand, the comment about the 9/11 attack would seem to be serious, and that would make it worth including. I'd recommend phrasing it along the lines of "When asked about the best and worst moments of his Presidency in an interview with Kai Diekmann of BILD, Bush replied that the worst moment was the attack of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath of the incident. He then joked that his best moment was when he caught a seven-and-a-half pound large mouth bass on his lake." DrLeebot13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I still think it's not worth including in this already very long article, that wording appears to be NPOV. This is such a long article that we need to be very critical of proposed additions. --ElKevbo14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This must be the silliest discussion I've seen on here. If you think the quote is notable, that's your opinion. If you think he was trying to be funny, that's your opinion. Leave it out and move on. It's not worth the time you people are wasting on it. Dubc072416:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it bears remarking that Wikipedia (as an ideally unbiased and democratic) encyclopedia is or should be different than journalistic sources. Just because the NY Times and BBC say something does not, I feel, mean that this merits inclusion in a Wikipedia article. But it raises an interesting question: does information Wikipedia aspire to be non-journalistic? --ponyboy10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Economy Section
Is anyone going to keep up with the Economy Section? If not then try to leave out monthly stats as they change so often.
Also this part Private employment (seasonally adjusted) originally decreased under Bush from 111,680,000 in December 2000 to 108,250,000 in mid-2003. The economy then added private jobs for 25 consecutive months from (July 2003 to August 2005), and the private employment seasonally adjusted numbers increased as of June 2005 when it reached 111,828,000. Considering population growth, that still represents a 4.6% decrease in employment since Bush took office is a year old and seems wrong anyways. The 4.6% seems way wrong by basic math and why isn't this kind of specific info linked? --Kswanks15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's wrong, but it might need some clarifying as to the math actually used. Reading it, I'm assuming that what it means is this: The ratio of private employment to population has decreased by 4.6% since Bush took office. DrLeebot13:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If there's no documents to support statistics and facts such as these, shouldn't it be deleted?--Exander07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. In that spirit, I boldly deleted the following uncited lines per WP:LIVING:
"Inflation under Bush has remained near historic lows at about 2–3% per year, where it has been since the 1990s.
Private employment (seasonally adjusted) originally decreased under Bush from 111,680,000 in December 2000 to 108,250,000 in mid-2003. The economy then added private jobs for 25 consecutive months from (July 2003 to August 2005), and the private employment seasonally adjusted numbers increased as of June 2005 when it reached 111,828,000. Considering population growth, that still represents a 4.6% decrease in employment since Bush took office.
In January 2006, the government reported that first-time jobless claims fell to their lowest level in more than five years to 291,000, a sign that the national labor market continues to shake off the effects of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma."
Snow is still in the job, his resignation will be effective whenever his successor is confirmed: short answer = not yet. --Easter Monkey01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Failure Redirect
Has anyone noticed the failure vandalism, in that the page is a redirect to this article? I tried to change it, but it was protected. 138.162.5.8
When it says in the first paragraph that his term expires on the 20th, it should say 12:00 Eastern time on January 20th
Are you sure? I thought it expires whenever the next president takes the oath of office, which could be 12:01, 12:22, or whatever. Furthermore, it could possibly end before then. We don't need to load the first paragraph down with specifics on the time his term ends. --Golbez21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
NPOV tags added by Llosoc
Llosoc, would you mind explaining your reasons for adding these tags? You should be aware that explaining the specific problems you found is a requirement of applying any of the various NPOV and POV tags to an article. So, what specifically is POV? Kasreyn23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read that Daddy Bush told Jr. that before he would help him get a political career going he needed to go out "and make his money". Bush started his oil company in Texas as a result (with financing from some of daddy's friends). Contrary to popular rumor, it WAS actually able to find oil in Texas. However, it went under because the company could not produce oil priced below $15/barrel and the market price at the time was $9/barrel and lost the investors money. Within a year he became an alcoholic and got his DUI. I believe all of this is accurate and verifiable and should be included in the article by someone. It really adds a backdrop to the Iraq war and the high oil prices as it points out that Bush's greatest personal failure (of making it on his own after Daddy told him to go out on his own) was because of low oil prices.
Can this be verified? I did read in the book "Parents of the Presidents" that the greatest comparison between the Bush family and the Kennedy family is that all the Bush men have had to create their own fortunes as adults before they could share in the family wealth, whereas the Kennedys got their inheritence upon becoming adults. But we also must remember that President George W. Bush also gained a lot from selling his share in the Texas Rangers before becoming governor of Texas. Criddic23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Stance on Gay Marriage
I find it odd that the Defense of Marriage act passed in '94 garners no metion in this article, or even any attention from Bush himself. He keeps attempting to use the amendment process, which he has no real power to use directly, without looking at laws established already. I'm not saying include a biased point like that, just a note about the already passed Defense of Marriage act. Under Clinton, for God's sake! -- CmdrClow
Part of the problem with the DOMA (from the conservative perspective) is that it might be declared unconstitutional if it's ever brought to the Supreme Court. For instance, one could make the argument that it infringes upon one's Ninth Amendment rights (the right to privacy and to marry whom one wishes might fall under this category of unenumerated rights). Alternatively, one could say it breaks the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Additionally, there's still a lot of haziness surrounding what it covers (see the Defense of Marriage Act article). For instance, though the United States has a history of giving full faith and credit to all Canadian marriages, recently Canada has legalized gay marriage, and the DOMA makes no mention of whether states can deny rights to gay couples married under Canadian law. So, what has to be done to fix these problems? Simply, the constitution would have to be amended, which is exactly what they're trying to do, and the wording would have to be clarified. This is why you don't see Bush mentioning the DOMA.
Now, just because an argument is substantiated and valid doesn't mean it isn't original research. If it's worth including in here, then it should be possible to find a source that has already made that argument and quote that source. ---DrLeebot12:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There have been 17 constitutional amendments in 217 years. Every single constitutional amendment has expanded citizens rights. If this passes, it would not only be an abuse of the amendment process but also the first amendment to restrict citizens' rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CmdrClow (talk • contribs) .
I think CmdrClow meant that there have been 17 amendments since the bill of rights (the first ten) was passed in 1789 (217 years ago) for a total of 27 amendments. --Easter Monkey08:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That may be, but CmdrClow is still mistaken in saying that all previous amendments expanded individual rights. The 18th Amendment restricted the right of the individual to purchase alcohol. Brandon3910:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it's also notably the only amendment to be repealed, meaning that there is currently no amendment in effect that restricts citizens' rights. (But granted, this isn't what CmdrClow said.)
Now, despite the fact that it does limit citizens' rights, does that alone make it an abuse of the amendment process? From the analysis of DOMA, it's apparent that it if ever got to court it would have constitutionality concerns as it goes against the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution. So, if the government wished to create a version that worked, they would have to change the constitution - either by removing the Full Faith and Credit clause or by defining what "marriage" is and thus what the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to.
Now, to be an abuse of the process, it would have to be possible to encode it as simply a national law. Prohibition is a good example of where that was the case - there's no good reason they couldn't have simply made a national law stating all the things that the amendment did. On anything to do with marriage, since it's specifically mentioned in the constitution, they have to at the very least keep the constitution in mind with their actions. And if they're changing the definition of the term in the constitution, it should be at least as hard to do as make and amendment to it - otherwise they could, to make a ridiculous example, redefine "treason" as voting for the Democratic party, an example which makes it apparent that they can't be allowed to go around redefining words in the constitution easily. So what does that leave? Make redefining a word in the constitution require an amendment. If you're changing the meaning of it, you're changing - amending - the constitution. If that's what you're doing, those are the rules you should follow.
A final note to those opposed to this amendment: Be glad that they're trying to make it an amendment rather than a national law, as it's a lot harder to pass an amendment than a law. Please don't go crying "abuse of the amendment system." ---DrLeebot12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The content of a proposed amendment cannot constitute "abuse of the amendment system", or else the entire purpose of the amendment system would be fundamentally undermined. The point of the amendment system is to allow we, the people, to amend our Constitution in any way we choose - and I do mean any way. I am personally opposed to the amendment, politically, but there is nothing improper about proposing it that I can see, except for my feeling that its subject matter is far too unimportant, narrow, and specific to be worth even mentioning in the Constitution's otherwise brilliant text. Now, if votes were to be rigged, or some other irregularity introduced into the process of the amendment system as this proposed amendment works its way through, then that would be an abuse of the system. I, for one, remain quite confident that it has no hope of passing any time soon. Kasreyn20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the Defense of Marraige law exists, President Bush has stated that the reason he wants an amendment is to prevent "activist judges" from overturning each state's legislation on the issue. Criddic23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The trouble here is that W believes that everything in this countr ycan be solved by giving the executive more power and preventing the so-called "liberal activist judges" from making their own decisions and "legislating from the bench." Does this mean that he wants to abolish precedent and case law? 07agwatts
That is hardly unprecedented. It goes back to the early years of the presidency, with arguments made by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Presidents who prefer stronger executive power are usually confronted with major military decisions or other major issues, requiring massive reforms or more immediate actions. Presidents Lincoln, FDR, and others, have asserted this viewpoint at various times. I doubt President Bush would have done so without the events of 9/11. Whether he oversteps his boundaries is for the Congress to decide. Criddic05:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather curious about the recent changes to this section and their immediate removal with the edit summary of trimming POV material... is the Boston Globe not considered a reliable source? What is POV about noting a sworn deposition, or the opinion of a former assistant secretary of defense?
I feel that the user who removed these remarks is unclear on what "NPOV" means. "NPOV" does not mean "make sure you take an equal number of viewpoints from both right and left, and keep them even at all times." Ridiculous, especially since American concepts of "right" and "left" are not globally accepted. "NPOV" means primarily that claims must be presented in an unbiased manner, without verbiage or structuring that would deliberately frame or bias the reader. It also means not to give undue weight to certain minority viewpoints. Examining the sections removed, I do not see evidence of POV phrasing or verbiage, nor do I think they are being given undue weight. Perhaps the editor who removed them felt they were not notable, or that the Boston Globe was misquoted or is unreliable. These are all other reasons for removal of content. But I'm just not seeing the POV here. Surely a military officer swearing a deposition that he abused his authority is notable in the article on the man that abuse benefited? Surely the opinion of a former assistant secretary of state is notable on the subject of alleged dereliction of duty - an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, no less!
According to several experts who examined his record, no.
US News obtained and reviewed Bush's National Guard records and disputes the Bush line that he fufilled the technical requirements of his service.
A recent examination of the records by U.S. News does not appear to support Lloyd's conclusions. Among the issues identified by the magazine:
"The White House used an inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that President Bush fulfilled his National Guard duty.
Even using this lesser standard, the president did not attend enough drills to complete his obligation to the Guard during his final year of service.
During the final two years of his service obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. Instead, he took credit for makeup drills he participated in outside that time frame. Five months of drills missed by the President in 1972 were never made up, contrary to assertions made by the White House."[1]
This contradicts the article's claim (before my edit) that Bush "fully completed his required time in service obligations." It also means the citation of the number of points Bush earned is misleading since every year he is above the quota, but it is not mentioned that more is required that simply meeting the quota of 50 points.
IworkforNASA deleted several key facts I added, including that a former Texas Speaker of the House swore under oath that he pulled strings to get Bush into his particular unit ahead of many others on the waitlist. He also slanted the article to make it appear that only "left-leaning" groups investigated or called attention to Bush's record. In fact the two investigations I cited included the Boston Globe's and US News, which is generally considered a slightly right-of-center newsmagazine. I also quoted critizism of Bush's record by a Reagan Administration official.
These should not have been deleted, and I am restoring him. If he feels more balance should be added, I invite him add additional discussion and facts, and to provide citations to these facts.
It is also misleading to simply say that Bush was honorably discharged without mentioning the fact that this does not mean that he fulfilled all of his duties, but simply that the military choose not to make a case against his honorable discharge. As the New Republic's article on the issue notes:
"John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985."
If we are going to note that Bush was honorably discharged, then the context and meaning of being discharged, especially in 1974 when the military was very eager to shed soliders due to the end of the war, needs to be explained.
Kitteneatkitten02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a link at the bottom of the page to a Scientology/Remote Viewing page, when the topic is never mentioned in the body of the article? 67.127.59.11211:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Kevin
The site which hosts the document to which the link points seems to have an anti-Scientology agenda, and not be controlled by the CoS. Too Old01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the link. I suspect that the article may have covered his policy or decisions on Remote Viewing and/or Scientology in some earlier version, and this link wasn't removed when that portion of the article was. ---DrLeebot13:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the arguments being made over there reveal to me a lack of understanding of the editing dynamics of major political articles. A merge is wrong, these allegations are an incredibly small part of the notability of the presidents. The allegations derive notability from the presidents, not the reverse. Deletion is wrong, even if these are frivolous, because these are reasonably well-known and have been published by the media. This provides a place for a neutral factual descriptions rather than conspiracy blog-rantings. I could see splitting the article into four, but I'm not sure why that's a better organization.
Anyway, Jimbo regards the AFD process as broken, because it gives control to editors with no experience or demonstrated interest in an area. I'm beginning to agree. I certainly don't think a discussion of a probable schizophrenic's lawsuit belongs in this article. I also think that it, and the others, are well-known enough that a brief discussion somewhere else is useful to the readers, and that's our purpose after all. Derex17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, I had never heard of the rape allegation against Bush until 69.181.124.51 mentioned the article. I wonder about the propriety of coming here apparently to recruit voters to stop the merge. Kasreyn00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
AIDS Contributions
The funding of $15 Billion refered to in the AIDS portion of this page fails to address the reality of AIDS funding under the Bush administration. The President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is in fact a partial redistribution of existing funds committed to AIDS relief around the globe. The actual amount of new funding is $9 billion while the rest was already earmarked for AIDS relief. However, PEPFAR has placed restrictions on the distrbution of funding to countries based on their current form of government, the types of AIDS programs currently in place and political/religious views. In short, the president has politicized AIDS relief. For instance, countries that have programs that do not advocate abstinence until marriage receive less or no funding than countries that do. This has resulted in 14 so called focus countries that will receive a majority of the funding. Also, PEPFAR limits the total amount of funding to 3 billion dollars over 5 years, with each fiscal year requiring a budget to be set by congress. This means that the entire 3 billion for each year may not be actually allocated to AIDS relief. 3 billion is merely the maximum amount which can be budgeted.
I believe the above should be included in the AIDS section of this page which in its current form fails to accurately depict the implications of PEPFAR implemented by Bush.
More emphasis should be placed on the fact that the Bush administration pushes "Abstinence Only" programs. Having spent time in Ethiopia, I can attest to the fact that refusing to include condom education leads to increased spread of the virus.72.139.184.10714:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! Feel free to add something to the article to improve that section. I can't promise it will remain unedited or even in the article (this is already a very large article about a contemporary and highly visible person), especially if your edits are not supported by a reputable, verifiable source. But we'd appreciate any help you can offer in improving this article! --ElKevbo14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
King George
Is Bush's use of signing statements covered anywhere in Wikipedia (Boston Globe, April 30 [5]; or see here for a shorter comment on the issue)? Rd232talk10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's currently hovering around the news right now, so an aside is appropriate. If it becomes a bigger issue, then it will deserve more mention. ---DrLeebot13:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Trivia section
I deleted the Trivia section. It only had one item listed: "George W. Bush Appears as the first query found for the term 'Failure' when searched on the engine Google." This is not a noteable fact in this already very long article. --ElKevbo16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Good call, ElKevbo, especially considering the fact that the Bush/failure/Google fact is true only because of the Google bombing phenomenon. (see Google bomb) I'm not saying I'm pro-Bush, I'm just debunking the validity to Google's ranking of Bush as a failure. -- User: Minaker
Yes, but perhaps the Google bomb effort is itself significant, if only as an example of how people opposed to Bush in 2006 mobilize against him. User:Nepal Tree 13:11, June 10, 2006
Except for the fact that the Google bombing has little to do with his presidency. It's a funny haha joke, but it's at best a joke. PPGMD18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the man George W. Bush. A joke or whatever you want to call it which is as internationally noteable as the Google bomb deserves to be mentioned whether or whether not it has to do with his presidency. The pretzel incident likewise might have nothing to do with his presidency but it even more noteable and likewise deserves a mention in the article. I suspect that internationally, more people know and are interested to know that Bush is the first result for failure in Google then know or are interested to know that Bush is nicknamed Dubya. Oh and BTW, I dispute the fact that it has nothing to do with his presidency. It has all to do with his presidency. His perceived failings (fair or otherwise) by his critics, both within the US and outside the US are the primary reason for the joke. If he were just some ordinary scmuck or even just the governer of Texas I can assure you he would not be the first result for failure (perhaps Al Gore?). BTW, of course the Google bomb thing arguably has less staying power. 10 years from know, it would no longer be the case and perhaps even mention of it historically in this article might not be necessary whereas the pretzel incident and definitely his nickname surely would be. Nil Einne06:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of jokes made about a President when he is in power, should each one be in this article? The Google Bombing isn't an example of a huge movement, it simply was an exploitation of Google's page ranking system used as a political joke by Mr. Moore and a handful of his supporters. Who I might mention threatened to sue a Conservative Talk show, that Google Bombed him into the second spot (at the time). The Google Bomb was hardly notable to the world at large. PPGMD13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is already chock-full of criticisms and is extremely long. This particular point is already mentioned prominently at the google bombing article, which is where it belongs.--Kchase02T08:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. To the world at large, the Google bomb is more noteable then half of the stuff in this article. As I have stated previously, most people outside the US probably don't know that Bush is nicknamed Dubya nor do they have any interest to know. Many of these do know that Bush is number 1 for failure and many of those who don't are interested to know. Despite your claim it lacks notability, it has been mentioned by many media organisations as well as being the topic for many forwarded e-mails. It's hardly an ordinary joke or one of the many other jokes out there. This may surpise you but most of us in the rest of the world don't really have the time or concern to know all the details of Bush's life but that joke I mentioned is something many people do have the time or concern for. When people visit an article, either wish to check a specific fact of get an overall picture. Reading that article has to give that overall picture. Failing to mention something as noteable as the (miserable) failure Google bomb is a rather serious shortcoming for us. Articles on leaders and other controversial figures do tend to have lots of criticisms. This is unsurprising and should be expected. These criticisms may be serious issues or they may be noteable jokes like the one mentioned. Obviously, there is no need to go into the Google bomb in detail, that is left for it's own article.
Also, there is no evidence for your claim that this one in particular had anything to do with Michael Moore. You might want to try reading the page on the Bush Google bomb before making such comments. Michael Moore is obviously a bit of an idiot, but in any case, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand which is the notability of this 'joke' and it's suitability for inclusion in this article. I should had that although this is a joke to some extent, there is no questioning the fact that most of the people involved in 'implementing'/carrying out the joke do feel that Bush is a miserable failure. P.S. As you might have guessed a long time ago, I don't live in the US. Nil Einne01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Find some verifiable sources that support your claims and throw them in the article. If it is as important as you say it is then surely there will be several sources which support your assertions and it belongs in the article. --ElKevbo01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It is notable because this bomb reflects the public perception of Bush. The bomb affects not just Google - it also affects Yahoo! Search, MSN Search and others. I think it should go into section 4.6 on public perception of Bush. I added it, but was blocked by NSLE. --J.L.W.S. The Special One10:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the man or his presidency. Lets mention every other protest while we are at it. This does not belong in a scholarly article.--Looper592011:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Might the people advocating including the Google Bomb also want to include the fact that "Great president" brings up GWB as nr. one result as well (White House Bio)--Kalsermar15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Has that ever been discussed in the media? Even if it has, the fact remains, it's hardly anywhere as noteable as the failure issue, no matter whether you want it to or not... Nil Einne01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't "George W. Bush" trivia precisely. It's a bit more universal than that, but it certainly involves him and the way he is described in this article as the "43rd President." 43rd, huh? So we've had 43 U.S. Presidents. ... Name 'em. Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms. Big deal. He's still only one person. I am sick of the silence over this issue. Clinton didn't count twice. Neither did Roosevelt and he was elected four times! There have been 42 men elected to the office of U.S. President so far. George W. Bush is the most recent. Therefore it follows that George W. Bush can be considered the 42nd man elected President.
While this is technically true, the fact is that Cleveland WAS elected before and after Benjamin Harrison, which makes him the 22nd and 24th presidents. Had he been elected consecutively, he would have been counted only once. His historic feat disrupted the order. Therefore, President Bush is counted as number 43, despite being the 42nd person elected to the office. Criddic05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Bush/Rice Affair
Anyone else heard about W.'s affair with Condi, and Laura staying at a hotel? I though I saw something on the Wayne Masden Report.--wakefencer
Besides, everyone klnows that Rice is a lesbian. Cripes. Maybe we should start a page for wild-ass rumors and innuendo (viz. 'Satanist' below.) -- Charlie (Colorado)18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Day
I've added a sentence mentioning Bush's controversial Jesus Day proclamation [6] to the religion section of the article. Any comments and/or objections?--?TBC? (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why Schrodinger's Mongoose considers this not to be controversial... but I have no desire to engage in a revert war, so hopefully he will discuss it here with me. In an effort to provide various points of view, I've added a notation of the criticism of this proclamation by two groups (AJC and AU). Kasreyn06:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey...no offense intended, I just removed the word "controversial" to keep things neutral. If something is to be called "controversial" I thought there should probably be a citation...which obviously has now been found. However, I don't think "refuseandresist.org", a hard-core socialist website, is the best place to link to. The original source is a legit NYT article, so I agree it should stay, but can anyone find a better link than Refuse and Resist? Schrodingers Mongoose16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing. I did some looking, but couldn't find a better link. The NYT online is pretty much useless thanks to their damnable subscription system. I often wind up using secondary sources citing them. A direct link certainly would be better. Kasreyn17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, while I agree that NYT online articles can be annoying, if a reliable source is available even if that source is the NYT online, then that needs to stay. The fact that you can't verify it doesn't change the fact that it is verifiable. When and if you can find a better link, then you're welcome to update it but removing content or a link just because it is from the NYT Online is unacceptable Nil Einne06:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't saying I feel NYT shouldn't be used, just expressing my frustration at their subscription. I should have phrased it better. I do in fact feel the NYT is a reliable source, I just prefer primary sources to secondary sources. A paper of record like the NYT should be made available online for fair use purposes. As far as I know I have never removed content or links from NYT from Wikipedia. Cheers, Kasreyn14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you can't verify it doesn't change the fact that it is verifiable Are you John Kerry? :-> Dubc072417:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The statement that Bush's "Jesus Day" in Texas was "was popular with most people across the state," really ought to be removed or cited. I'm a life-long Texas resident and people I've talked to over the years have never even heard of "Jesus Day," (and there's zero evidence that it was popular with "most" Texans).
2000 campaign against McCain
Did anybody see the Larry King Live episode where Bush disses McCain's war service?
I found it to be very disheartening and disrespectful to McCain and all veterans.
I think it is a notable subject and a good display of Bush's poor character.
Therefore, I think it should be included in this wikipedia article.
The fact that you want to use Wikipedia to demonstrate the president's "poor character" indicates your proposed change is a bad idea. Read up on POV. 65.95.142.24117:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK then. How about somebody else writes it to allow readers to come to their own conclusion about his character?
MLSmateo21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
its not a pov if you just state what was said and allow the reader to draw there own conclusion, no matter what the intenetion of the writer is.
What I find more interesting than the Larry King episode was the allegations of push polling (aka a whisper campaign) against McCain in 2000. [7][8] Are these currently mentioned in the article on the 2000 campaign? It certainly makes me curious how McCain is going to treat a party that looked aside from such dirty infighting and may try to rehabilitate him eight years later. I wonder if he wants the oval office so badly he's willing to forgive and forget? Kasreyn14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
President Bush calls off FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family
This article was taken off the BBC (English, not American news) website:
America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because the US administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.
The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199I WF213589 and emanating out of the FBI’s Washington field office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the World Trade Centre attacks.
The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight, said the FBI was told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation," whose accounts have still not frozen by the US treasury despite "being banned by Pakistan some weeks ago and India claiming it was linked to an organisation involved in bombing in Kashmir".
Newsnight said there was a long history of "shadowy" American connections with Saudi Arabia, not least the two presidents Bush’s "business dealings" with the bin Ladens and another more insidious link revealed by the former head of the American visa section in Jeddah.
The official said he had been concerned about visas issued to large numbers of "unqualified" men "with no family links or any links with America or Saudi Arabia", only to find out later that it "was not visa fraud" but part of a scheme in which young men "recruited by Osama bin Laden" were being sent for "terrorist training by the CIA" after which they were sent on to Afghanistan.
In a reiteration of a now well-known claim by one of George W Bush’s former business partners, the BBC said he made his first million 20 years ago on the back of a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem Bin Laden. But it added the more disturbing assertion that both presidents Bush had lucrative stakes along with the bin Ladens in Carlyle Corporation, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors. The bin Ladens sold their stake in Carlyle soon after September 11, it said.
American politicians later told the BBC programme that they rejected the accusation that the establishment had called the dogs of the intelligence agencies off the bin Ladens and the royal House of Saud because of a strategic interest in Saudi Arabia, which has the world's biggest oil reserve.
I find this a bit disturbing to include. The Bin Ladens officially denounced Osama years ago. Is this meant to imply a Bush connection to 9/11? There's no evidence to support such a claim. Criddic23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And it mentions both Bushes but not Clinton, who was offered bin Laden at least once? Seems a bit slanted to me... Dubc072412:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It shows the facts. This article doesn't mention Clinton because the article we are talking about is NOT Bill Clinton, it is Goerge W. Bush. This shows the cold hard facts and not including would show a lack of comittment to the NPOV. Just because the facts don't support your view doesn't mean they aren't facts. Stop Me Now!16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Need content for ...
... the "List of resignations from the George W. Bush Administration" page, which is linked from the 'See also' section at the bottom of this page: George W. Bush Administration.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.207.80.59 (talk • contribs) .
sources!?!?
how can this article pretend to be neutral when it opennly and unabashedly sites obvious partasain "news" sourcs like the New York Times, the BBC, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and even CBS "news"? all of which have an open and on the reckord partasain bias, more importantly the writing on all of those isn't even good enough to line my bird cage. what a joke—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTYBELL23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You might find it interesting that the only American publication mentioned by name in Wikipedia policy as a reliable source was the New York Times. The other organizations you mention seem equally middle-of-the-road to me. I know many a conservative editor on Wikipedia who would consider any of those sources reliable. Kasreyn03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know the BBC, CNN, MSNBC or the CBS published paper newspapers (I assume you line your bird cage with paper not crushed CRT tubes or perhaps crushed LCD) Nil Einne01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually all of those have been acused of Corporate Bias (acused as well of liberal bias by most pundits, yet never really confirmed all in all), with the exception of the BBC. The New York Times and the Washington Post as some of the most respected news pappers in the world (as oposed to the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post), not because some radio pundit keeps his unchanged rap of "liberal news destroying america" does it mean that they shouldnt count as sources. If you suffer so much for the diversity of the sources, i suggest you try yourself to find some with a conservative aproach to them (E.G., all that is owned by mr Murdoch).
Nobel Peace Prize Nominees
I note that this category was removed, but the reasons were unclear. If it's not a category, then fine...but Bush WAS nominated for the peace prize in 2002. Can the editor explain why he/she thinks this is "a joke"? Schrodingers Mongoose17:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"Nobel Peace Prize Nominees" is a highly questionable category for modern times. According to Nobel Peace Prize, "Over time many individuals have become known as 'Nobel Peace Prize Nominees', but this designation has no official standing." Nominations are kept secret by the committee. Nominations prior to 1951 would make acceptable category fodder, as they have been published (and include Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini). There's no official verifiable source for Bush's nomination -- or anyone else's. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would favor a CfD on that category. Of what notability are persons who were merely nominated? And if we can't verify the nominations, how can we include them? Kasreyn19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Pistolpierre and I have had a brief discussion about this on my Talk page (he left me a message asking why I deleted the link). I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia article about George Bush as it's inherently unencyclopediac. But thanks for raising this on the Talk page, Pistolpierre - this is exactly where and how this issue should be raised on this very busy and politically charged article! --ElKevbo23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, this is nowhere near a mainstream view, not mentioned in press, not going to ever amount to anything, and not worth discussing. Please do not attempt to re-insert this link into any Wikipedia article. Thank you. Harro501:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Umm, you are aware that Bush isn't even Catholic, right? Excommunication by the Pope of Rome means nothing to him. Besides, it's been centuries since the Pope wielded any temporal influence over other countries, beyond the status of a sometimes-venerated spiritual advisor. Kasreyn21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the big reason this doesn't fit in here is that it's original research. If it becomes big enough that someone else reports on it, then maybe (which I personally doubt will ever happen, to be honest. The Vatican is likely to dismiss it as ridiculous). ---DrLeebot18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus, in regards to gay-bashing...why would the Pope excommunicate a third party for Bush's actions in which the Catholic church sort of agrees with?Squiggyfm21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
hook em' horns / hail freemasons - order of death
I am still not sure why dubya insists on using the gesture of the "mano cornuta, horned hand".
It is my belief that this topic deserves more attention. Are we to believe that this is nothing more than his family/ and organizations' devotion to the University of Texas ?
It might. But if the questioner knew any Texans, he or she would not be asking this question. Obviously, all UT fans are Satanists.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Should this article mention that the George Bush article holds a record on wikipedia as the most vandalised page on wikipedia? 195.93.21.13710:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The tone of the article currently seems (to me) so positive and deferential as to appear sanitized. Is it possible that anything perceived as negative or controversial is being deleted as vandalism? - Mark Dixon01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as POV, more likely, unless it's obvious that it is simple vandalism and not PVO-pushing. Also, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for why it might seem sanitized - Wikipedia tries to avoid too much bashing of living individuals on pages about them.---DrLeebot14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. It's important to keep in mind, though, that putting an unjustifiably positive spin on something is just as POV as an unjustifiably negative spin. - Mark Dixon16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It could be mentioned on the wikipedia article, that it is the most vandalize page. It can be used to show that despite that this is a controversial topic, wikipedia has the ability to have a fairly un-baised article. Simply even though it is an open community and anyone can write to it, the article is still realiable and accurate. It can actually make the wikipedia community look somewhat professional. --Jbaxi18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
der Buschbaum-Betriebsaffe
meine lustigen Haar tatses, etwas Käse über dem Internet schicken Sie mir bitte, bevor der Affe meine Huhnkuh tötet --152.163.100.7421:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I can't edit this page being a new user, could someone please fix the "In office since" line in the infobox, right now it just says {{{term_start}}}. Thanks, Newnam02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I just spent some time cleaning up the external links (mostly references) in this article. Somehow (vandalism? carelessness?) a space had been inserted between the opening bracket and the URL thus causing the links to display improperly. Please be careful when adding or editing external links. And please try to insert new references in a format consistent with existing references. Feel to drop me a line on my Talk page or here on this Talk page if you have any questions or need any help! --ElKevbo03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
what do you mean by "suspect"? Do you mean that those people did not say what the article reports? Or that you dispute what they said? Too Old18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So your intent is to say you disagree with those statements. You can put in quotations that rebut them, if you can find them. US law does not, unlike many truly dictatorial regimes, make it criminal to criticise governmental figures. Statements praising GWB are, of course, equally POV. Too Old16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but obviously one is not able to find a rebuttal from George W. Bush, the Republican Party and "conservative movement" that get criticized here. If it criticism on George W. Bush, shouldn't it be added to this article, instead of the Neo-Fascism article? Intangible17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You might not find a rebuttal by GWB, but I have not noticed any reticence by other "conservatives" when disputing Noam Chomsky. I am not familiar with the other authors. If you think the criticisms should be in this article, you could include them here, or you could put in a link to Neo-fascism#Neo-Fascism and the United States. In either case you could put in rebuttals by anyone you like, in either article, as long as it's not your own opinion. I would not insert rebuttals to these analyses myself, since I agree with them. Too Old07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite by Rama's Arrow some days ago
I'm rather concerned about a major rewrite of the "Life before Presidency" section done by Rama's Arrow several days ago. I only just now noticed. For one thing, links to the main articles on some topics, such as the substance abuse controversy, seem to have been removed from the main body, making it less likely the reader will notice them. I don't feel the edit was really an improvement. It seems rather muddled and mashed-together now. Kasreyn23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is in process of an FA drive, and I will be shortly adding more references and smoothening the language. Please be patient. The links to substance abuse controversy and other stuff have been moved to the Bush template. The rewrites have helped improve the prose and balance, and I'm in process of eliminating NPOV.Rama's Arrow23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted to eliminate NPOV, this article - home to worldwide Bush-haters and vandals - would be the last place to start. Rama's Arrow00:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The facts aren't a POV, Rama's Arrow, and removing stuff like Bush's substance abuse scandals show that the people here aren't Bush haters, rather you a Bush lover. Stop Me Now!01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have one major concern with the rewrite: that it seems that the sections of the main article describing policy now seem mostly to mention Bush's initiatives - the criticisms of those initiatives or of policy decisions have now been relegated to the sub-articles. In particular, the enormously important issue of Bush's perceived lack of respect for science (as voiced by many scientists) does not seem to be mentioned at all in the main article. It appears only in the Science section of the Domestic policy sub-article. - Hayne02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please check back on Monday - I plan to make major changes tomorrow and will definitely balance the article deeply. Rama's Arrow03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope so. We spent a lot of time and discussion on the science section and I would hate to see you (or anyone else) unilaterally remove it without discussion. --ElKevbo02:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
my goodness, who decimated this article?? i've never quite understood the opinion expressed by some that the article was too long. i think if well-organized (which i thought it was), even a much lengthier article can provide quick reference to those who want it while still demonstrating the depth that one expects of an encyclopedia (a depth which, i believe, has been nearly completely stripped from this article). i agree with the above comment that many sections have been reduced to GOP talking points. perhaps i have missed it somehow, but it seems like this wholesale removal of critical information was performed with no advance discussion? i find this very upsetting! tej07:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It is now many weeks past the "Monday" mentioned by Rama's Arrow above. Where are the promised changes that would bring some semblance of balance back into this article? In particular, as I mentioned above, I am concerned with the complete absence of any criticism of the Bush administration's attitude toward science. - Hayne06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the civil rights sections? - or at least a reference that points out facts like Clinton followed the rules on items like FISA and Extraordinary Rendition (link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1562473 )while W Bush has not - as shown by the examples in the above entry. There is not even a reference via a link to the above wiki entry on rendition, nor any reference to other civil rights changes under W Bush such as the Patriot Act that was being written 7 months prior to 9/11, as well as the NSA changes to record domestic citizen communications via calls/internet that also began in Feb 2001.
"In sum, while the full protections that accompany challenges to detentions in other settings may prove unworkable and inappropriate in the enemy-combatant setting, the threats to military operations posed by a basic system of independent review are not so weighty as to trump a citizen's core rights to challenge meaningfully the Government's case and to be heard by an impartial adjudicator."
I'm seeing way too much of the former and absolutely nothing on the latter. If anything, the UN resolution(s) violations by Saddam are what the administration maintains was their basis for war with Iraq. I'm pretty upset that wiki is missing this vital info, but I don't have the required experience to update it myself.
That's what they say now, granted, but it isn't what they said at the time. Whether they like it or not, we were all around to listen to them tell us their reasons for going in when it happened, and those reasons boiled down to the WMDs (at least to the perception of the American public. It may have been different behind-the-scenes, but that's ultimately irrelevent). I do recall a few mentions of human rights issues at the time, but they weren't the main reason. Either way, we should reference news stories from that period to see what they said at the time.
What they now say they said is completely irrelevent (it's just spin). What the records say they said is what's important. And if you want to get into a debate about the real reasons behind it, just remember that to keep it balanced you'll also have to include liberal (conspiracy) theories that the war was waged on political and personal grounds. ---DrLeebot12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What's with the liberal (conspiracy) thing? Most biased thing i've ever seen. -King Zwardo 5:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Japanese Prime Minister
It may be premature right now because it is still in the news, but I think that at least one line or so ought to be included regarding the rather unusually strong friendship between Junichiro Koizumi and GW Bush. Other than the obvious controversial issues, this fact is turning out to be one of the more defining aspects of his Presidency. Perhaps in the "Foreign Policy" section. [9] --The Yar18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Acutally, I see the last line of the article talks about leaders with whom he has personal and working relationships. Koizumi isn't even mentioned there, but I'd think that relationship would deserve even its own recognition, above the others listed. --The Yar18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Economic Policies
The phrasing "However, cuts were distributed disproportionately to higher income taxpayers" is questionable: while the total dollar value was greater for higher-income taxpayers, the effect of the changes in the tax code were to make the overall tax burden more progressive, with more tax revenue coming from high income taxpayers. Suggest correcting this to "While net savings were greater for higher-income taxpayers, the overall effect was to cause the tax burden to fall more upon these high-income taxpayers, resulting in a more 'progressive' tax code." -- Charlie (Colorado)06:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought that a tax system would be more progressive than another system if it imposed a tax greater in proportion to income on higher-income taxpayers, rather than just collecting more money from them than from the poor. A flat tax - the same effective rate for all - would be "progressive" by your definition (more revenue from the rich) but regressive (the poor pay a greater proportion of income needed for subsistence) by mine. For Warren Buffett to give away $30,000,000,000 is easier for him than giving away $10,000 would be for me. Too Old07:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The effect of the Bush tax cuts increased the proprotion of tax paid by higher income taxpayers. As you say, that's what's called a 'progressive' tax code. The questionable statement is that the tax cuts were "distributed disproportionately", and considering that the tax cuts result in higher income taxpayers paying a larger proportion of the tax, this phrasing seems not NPOV. -- Charlie (Colorado)18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: The comment by User:ChasRMartin|Charlie (Colorado)]] above is just not true as to Bush tax cuts resulting in a more 'progressive' tax code- it is easy to do the math that shows that if you ship 10% of the needed tax down to the grandkids via the birth tax/national Debt increase, cut taxes for the rich with minimal $300 cuts for the non-rich,and then effect policy that has the the rich earn 50% more income, the income tax paid by the rich will indeed increase, and not only in dollars but also in terms of the proportion of the tax that the rich pay - but what would you expect if the rich go from 80% of all income to 90% of all income? You would expect they'd pay more tax because because the earned more income, and you'd expect that they paid a higher proportion of the total tax because they had a higher proportion of the total income.
So your point is that the phrasing is based on the normal definitions, instead of picking a POV based on a bunch of assumptions about the future? -- Charlie (Colorado)18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just edited it to say "Arguably" tax cuts were distributed disproportionately, but the results were also more progressive. That seems to get both views in. -- Charlie (Colorado)18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Charlie, I understand the definition definition of progressive to be not that the rich pay a greater proportion of the tax revenue, but that they pay a greater proportion of their income. They almost always pay more tax in dollar amounts, regardless of the tax rate, because their income is greater, but that tax is regressive if it imposes less real pain upon them than it imposes on the poor. Since the poor must pay a greater proportion of their income on necessities, if they pay the same proportion of income as the rich, it imposes more real pain, since it usually deprives them of necessities, like good health care. Across-the-board sales taxes or value added taxes that do not exempt necessities like food and cooking necessities, clothing and sewing necessities, housing, medical necessities (non-prescription as well as prescription), essential transportation, etc. are always regressive. Based upon this definition I would say that we have never had a progressive tax system, but that some systems are more progressive than others, on a relative basis. We are now plainly going in the regressive direction. Too Old17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
npov
This article lacks a npov because it has verry little discussion of the negative points of the subject. user:bob000555 9:58 2 Jully 2006 (east time zone)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"feel free to edit" my ass, the page is currently protected for changes, and lets be honest here, its almost imposible to make any change in this page, in any political page, specially the ones from "controversial" leaders. Whatever change you make WILL be reverted, called vandalism and will by no reasson whatsoever be placed (theres a huge group of people watching over this article). If you really want it to be placed here, get ready for a good deal of time finding overwhelming sources, fighting with rhetoric why you think it should be there and most specially, try to convince everyone that its not POV. If THEN you are lucky enough, CONGRATULATIONS!, your modest contribution will be deleted within a month, the reasson?, some kid will erase that and write "this article is too POV".
Is that not an advantage of Wikipedia? As articles are either more controversial or more heavily read there is a greater amount of governance within such an article. The supporting documentation and debate required increases in proportion to the relative influential 'weight' of the article in Wiki which makes sense to me. --Artificialard06:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
bush video
i think a link to this video should be included to reinforcve the article including the section where he himself is quoted as saying he has drank too muhc in the past Qrc200602:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Who wrote that he is self-proclaimed war President??? It is the stupidest thing I have read!sasha_best
The video can be seen in the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, in which when asked what kind of president would he sayd he is, he replies "well, im a war president". Mr. Bush, of course says many things, but among all what he has sayd, he sayd very clearly what kind of president he is, perhaps his speech has changed, i wouldnt know. On a related issue, if you think thats the stupidest thing you've read... well you do the math there ;).
Hi all - I'm sorry for the delay in making further revisions and making this article an FA. I will be able to start work tomorrow for sure. Rama's Arrow14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Presenile Dementia
dubya has presenile dementia. why is this neglected in the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickapeadeea (talk • contribs)
Because it mainly manifests itself in people who don't have much concrete or substantial to offer in the way of rational arguments and thus pertains more to people who view the subject than the subject itself. Therefore it doesn't belong here but in Bush Derangement Syndrome.--Kalsermar18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
A line in the article states "Following failed diplomatic efforts to coax Saddam Hussein into yielding to weapons inspections, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq..." Now, I'm not positive about htis, but I do believe weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq, and that their efforts actually had to be postponed when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Can someone check up on this and get back to me? I don't want to remove the line without being certain that it is, indeed, false. tmopkisntlka22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have sources, but I do remember inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in early 2003, but within the first week they were again blocked from visting sites they wanted to vist and reported this violation to the head of the IAEA and the National Security Council. They were, I believe, evacuated approx 5 days prior to the 48 hour ultimatium. --mitrebox07:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Before that phrase was added, the sentence read "Following failed diplomatic efforts to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Bush ordered..." I think I like this wording better, because if you're right (which I'm almost positive you are) then weapons inspectors were let in, even if they were blocked from certain sites. tmopkisntlka07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
i am rather shocked by Rama Arrow's "comprehensive rewrite" of 2006-06-26 11:52:06. it seems to me that the article was not rewritten but rather gutted. an incredible amount of information was removed, much of it in my opinion clearly relevant and important. first of all, i am bothered by what seems to me a significant reduction in the depth and relevance of information here, and what seems to me to be a pro-Bush bias in the complete revamping of this entry. secondly, i do not see anything in the discussion section proposing this massive change. i did not do a thorough review, but i would certainly expect such an audacious maneuver to have its own section in the talk page--BEFORE making the edit.
since some time has gone by and numerous edits have been made since the massive rewrite, it will be tricky to salvage the deleted info while preserving newer edits, but worthwhile in my opinion. i'm not sure exactly what to propose... but i certainly think that it would be more in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia to discuss the REMOVAL of valid information, rather than have to pre-emptively justify its inclusion, so what i'd like to see is the old, deeper, more complete version restored, incorporating any factual corrections, additions, or useful reorganizations made by Rama Arrow and others (but NOT undiscussed deletions of valid relevant material); then if a case can be made for removals, each removal can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (not referring of course to vandalism here, or to pieces of information so blatantly reflecting "original research" or complete irrelevance that there will be no argument to deletion provided a specific rationale is given in the revision comment).
if i'm wrong about how wikipedia is supposed to work, please let me know. i'm not sure i have time to undertake this project anyway, but i would appreciate comments about the idea. tej07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
First off, I would like to clarify that I do not wish to project a pro-Bush bias (even though I'm a hardcore Bush supporter). Secondly, the edits are justified under WP:BOLD, and there was no WP:NPOV in the first place. I don't know why you think a 107kb version was better than this one.
I'm in process of making this article an WP:FA. I'm very, very sorry for the delay in following up with more work and refining, adding citations, refining criticism and making this article in line with WP:NPOV.
Please add your concerns/ideas to the peer review. I promise you that I'll begin working on this FA drive within a day's time, and hopefully, by Sunday or Monday, this piece will be ready for WP:FAC. This Fire Burns.....Always 07:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
To add, a key problem with the older version was that a lot of data made it look like an article on the Bush administration instead of George Bush the person. We have to keep the focus here on the person, not on the wider administration and politics. This Fire Burns.....Always 08:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Rama, I agree with much of the criticism above. The article you made (it's too radically changed to call it a rewrite) probably contains less unnecessary detail, less POV, and reads better than the previous one. But even if this new version is clearly better, the process that got it there makes a mockery of collaborative editing and has no basis in WP:BOLD (read the fourth paragraph). This article has gone through 30,000 edits and almost 50 talk page archives. Even if most of that is vandalism and reversions, it has way too much history for one person to unilaterally change it.
Others have expressed similar sentiments about reverting the page. Though I haven't made up my own mind, I think a straw poll might be in order. Thoughts?--Kchase02T09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me but this is completely out of line. I've just launched an effort to make this one of the best articles here, and you're talking about reverting to a 107kb, POV version???? Is pro-Bush POV worse than anti-Bush POV?
If there are people uneasy about this version, I say to them:JOIN THE PEER REVIEW! Join the FA drive, bring your references and refine the language. Under no policy can a straw poll or a reversion be justified. This Fire Burns.....Always 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As for collaboration, I've just launched an FA drive and opened A PEER REVIEW. Again, JOIN THE PEER REVIEW!!! Sorry if I sound rude, but your points are ridiculous. This article was not put up for Article Improvement Drive or US Collaboration of the Week, so I took the lead and made the changes. I don't think most users need ask for permission to make edits. This Fire Burns.....Always 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry but you got me very angry. All I'm saying is, join the peer review and help me make this an FA - an article which is WP:NPOV, everything is well-balanced and informative. The peer review is my effort to collaborate. This Fire Burns.....Always 12:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry my comments made you angry. However, I think they are justified by the circumstances. Collaborative editing is a cornerstone of wikipedia that applies to every article. It applies even to exceptional articles like this, that have attracted tremendous attention but have not become FAs. I recognize that your changes were made in good faith and that they took an enormous amount of time, but it's just not the way we do things.--Kchase02T17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
To articulate more: my objection is not just a philisophical attachment to collaborative editing.
A big issue is stability, which was a primary objection in the last FAC discussion. If the article now has a more pro-Bush POV than before, the POV pushers will just shove it back the other way. Even if it's an FA, its status as one will be short lived. To me, the way to improve this article would be to go through it and the subarticles topic by topic and get them to stable, readable versions that are at least close to NPOV.--Kchase02T17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
By joining the peer review, you can help solve the lack of collaboration issue. Let's do this as you suggest - let's do this thoroughly and properly. I'm open to all ideas and criticism, and I want more people to join this effort. But if nobody responds, as is the case right now, don't expect me to stop. This Fire Burns.....Always 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Kchase02 that your efforts, as good-intentioned and well-meaning as they are, do seem to be a significant departure from the collaboration which seems to have worked pretty well thus far for this extremely busy and, at times, contentious article. Your assertion that we should "[not] expect [you] to stop" if we don't participate in collaboration as you have narrowly defined (through the peer review process) particularly rubs me the wrong way and almost seems a kind of article ownership with you defining your own rules for collaboration.
We all welcome your efforts to improve this article. We do not welcome your heavy-handed attempts to impose your own definitions of collaboration or quality. --ElKevbo21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't argue against improving an article on the grounds that it is not collaborative. Every edit can be discussed and collaborated on. That the article was at 107 KB is proof enough that previous efforts were not in the right direction. Instead of criticizing an edit, provide justification for what this article should cover and why. - TaxmanTalk14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
i think we can all agree that "heavy-handed" was referring not to your desire for peer review or aspiring to featured article status, but rather to (as the subject of this talk section indicates) your massive wholesale deletion of material accumulated through the cooperation and contention of hundreds of people over years, with no prior discussion. i agree with Kchase02 above: you need to go back to WP:BOLD and read the entire thing. it covers pretty much exactly this scenario and explicitly urges against the approach you have taken, and explains why you have made people so upset. just in case you do not actually go and read as i ask, here are two choice quotes:
"please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories..."
"If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page... Then, wait for responses..." (emphasis added)
people make two standard objections to the sprawling nature of this page: that it's too long and that it's about Bush's presidency rather than Bush himself. i disagree with both, but especially the latter. people will come to this page to learn about Bush as a president, what he's done, how it's worked, and how the world has reacted. you wouldn't expect to see separate articles on previous presidents for their biographies and their administrations. to me, it seems like a convenient excuse to bury in obscurity facts that show Bush in a more negative light than the GOP talking points currently listed. as for the length, i tend to think that encylopedia articles should be encyclopedic. if cases are to be made for the removal of excess material, this absolutely should be done on a case-by-case basis, not one fell swoop. tej07:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
a couple more thoughts after reading the above (and your comments on Kchase02's talk page). above, you said, "Under no policy can a straw poll or a reversion be justified." that is a fine example of the attitude that is upsetting some of us a great deal. it does imply article ownership (you can destroy our work, but we can't put it back?), and it is also false (see Wikipedia:Straw_polls). you express dismay that we are criticizing your new article rather than "participating in the peer review" as you call it, which if i understand correctly just refers to making edits to the article. we are trying to participate in this review, by discussing a specific plan to make the article better--the proper way. no one is anxious to make arguments for each of the thousands of pieces of information you removed, i.e., recreating work done by hundreds of people over the past several years. what i would like to do is yes, revert back to the old, imperfect but collaborative article and go from there in the proper wiki spirit: making revisions/deletions case-by-case, and discussing big ones before doing them.
do we have more objections to the reverting idea? such a chore, but i currently think it's the most efficient way to go. the current state of the article is unacceptably POV, and i don't think an appropriate solution to that problem is to wait and see where Rama Arrow goes with it in days or weeks to come. (i mean no offense or disrespect, Rama Arrow, and i believe that you have the best interests of the article at heart, but i still think the current revision is unacceptable and more importantly, was arrived at through a most disagreeably anti-wikipedia approach.) tej07:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Satanism
Why is there no discussion of Bush´s Satanism? I find it incredibly rude that the question should be silenced under the "trolling" heading. A sizeable majority of people now believe that Bush is directly or indirectly engaged in satanism. Countless internet websites prove this conclusively. I don´t mind the debate. I also don´t mind disagreement. I even have compassion for those who don´t want to believe the evidence at first. But I do find it very poor manners to just erase any trace of serious discussiom for such a serious matter. We will probably never know better than the official reports legitimized by the intellectual establishment. But we do know when we are cheated.
I guess because a sizable majority of people are morons. And don't WANT to believe the evidence?!?! There's not a whole lot of evidence to believe, my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.246.255 (talk • contribs) 15:28, July 11, 2006
To those hate-filled individuals: Won´t you at least offer an explanation for deleting my attempts at discussion? After all this page is named discussion. + To those hate-filled individuals: Won´t you at least offer an explanation for deleting my attempts at discussion? After all this page is named discussion. (unsigned)
Because it is far from being an established fact that Skull and Bones is a Satanist society. If you have anything to discuss based on verifiable fact then feel free to add it here. DJ Clayworth20:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about Satanism, but it is disturbing that the Skull and Bones keeps putting people in power... Dubc072420:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
A sizeable majority of people now believe that Bush is directly or indirectly engaged in satanism. !!!!????? What the £%@*&?? His policies may have "satanic" results (like dust and debris from depleted uranium in munitions causing cancers for decades to come, like innocent bystanders being hauled into Abu Ghraib and driven mad, etc etc)... And perhaps a majority would agree that those policies have a satanic stink emanating from them. But satanism as a religious system? A majority of "people" believe that Bush is into it? Come on. What you see is what you get. What you see is bad enough. This is a silly distraction. Of course I might look into it and change my mind, but I still doubt there's a "majority" unless you only count as "people" the people you hang around. -chelydra
How about not ignoring the following sentence before judging me?
Nobody claimed he was the anti-Christ. Just a satanist.
Skull & Bones
I point out in the article that President Bush refuses to discuss the ideologies and ethos of S&Bs. Here is the minor addition made to the article: "- a society so secretive that Bush will not discuss its ideologies or ethos with the american people." Of course it was immediately deleted with the familiar NPOV. In Bush's autobiography he states that he will not discuss this secret society. Please see the NPOV tutorial for making articles NPOV. It clearly states that one should not delete to make an article NPOV - one should add. Americans have had so many rights taken away from them by the patriot act, please don't take away my right to edit this article.
Moreover. it is not trivial that we have a President who belongs to a secret society, about which all the american people know is it's not for them, and its insignia is the Jolly Rogers - a [pirate] symbol. Pirates are thieves. This does not enhance the image of Skull & Bones. In a society that prides itself on being open and transparent, the fact that our President is a member of a secret society is extremely important and not merely POV. Therefore it should be featured in this article and not glossed over as a child's joke.
The fact is that our President honors his oath of secrecy to S&B's even after swearing that he takes the office of President "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." It seems to me, however, that he evades every question put to him by the american people regarding skull & Bones.
I think at the very least he should answer questions of the kind: Does the S&B organization do any charitable work? What are their views on nationalized health care? If the organization's views differed from yours, would you continue to support the organization - even to the extent of steering national policy in their direction? Does the organization have a history of preferrential treatment to its members? Are you bound by oath to give preferrential treatment to its members?
You are arguing this in the wrong place. Please take this discussion to the Skull & Bones article. -- Cecropia22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
We already have an article on Skull & Bones. Any factual description of the organization belongs there. Bush won't talk about it? No member talks about it. John Kerry and other well-known people are also members and don't talk about it. Will you append this to Kerry's and other member's articles? Please be aware also that argumentation inside an article is usually in violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy as well as the prohibition on original research. -- Cecropia21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The particular line that you added is, IMHO, redundant. S&B is a secret society so of course its members don't discuss it. That's what makes it a secret society. To draw conclusions from Bush's membership in the S&B without citing references is original research. Finally, your understanding of the "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion" portion of the oath of office is flawed; it has a very specific meaning and I encourage you perform some research on your own to learn the meaning of that particular phrase (*I* thought it was interesting when I learned about it). --ElKevbo21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutley, I will add this to the Kerry article. I think it is an insult to the american people that Presidential candidates can belong to secret societies that have unknown agendas, views, and policies. At the very least a presidential candidate should distance himself from any organization that disallows him from being open and forthcoming with the american people.
Maybe so, but I'll say again that we have an article on Skull & Bones, and it ain't the only secret society powerful and famous people have been in. What about Masons? Rosicrucians? You can't put it on a particular person, Bush, Kerry, or anyone else, to "out" such societies. -- Cecropia21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Secret societies are illegal in many countries. See below:
"Historically, secret societies are often the subject of suspicion and speculation from non-members; and as such have aroused nervousness from outsiders since the time of the ancient Greeks, when meetings were held "sub rosa" (Latin, "under the rose") to signify the secrecy and silence of the Hellenistic god Harpocrates.
For this reason, secret societies are illegal in several countries. In the European Union, Poland has made the ban a part of its constitution. Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland states:
"Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited.""
I also want to add that this is not original research. GWB states in his autobiography that he will not say more about S&Bs. I simple google search can verify that 'fact'.
That GWB won't discuss it is not a jumping off point to make broad accusations, in essence, of a cover-up. BUT Please, this is the wrong place to discuss this. If you want to pursue it, take your argument to the Talk Page of the S&B article. -- Cecropia22:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Secret societies are illegal in some places and Bush won't talk about the secret society to which he belongs. What do those facts have to do with this article? --ElKevbo22:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from BmikeSci's talk): Removing POV material (and Wikipedia is not a soapbox) is not valdalism. That Bush won't discuss Skull & Bones is a fact. Your evaluation of that one fact is POV. And George H.W. Bush won't discuss it. And John Kerry won't discuss it. And Wiliiam F. Buckley won't discuss it. I am not unsympathetic to negative feelings toward secret societies (which, if they are not criminal organizations are Constitutionally protected in the U.S.) but this is for the S&B article, not the Bush aricle What part of that don't your understand? -- Cecropia22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
(Ibid)
I understand what you are saying. I just don't think you are a cannonical source. I don't think that my single adjectival phrase is soapbox or POV. I do think that removing it over and over again is vandalism. Even if it were somewhat POV, once again, please read the NPOV tutorial. It clearly states that the way to make an article NPOV is to include all alternate POVs, not to remove the ones you don't like.
Nevertheless, I consider my edit to be merely factual. Please provide evidence to the contrary, and I will remove it.
BmikeSci 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI
I have been accused of being argumentative in the article. I waould like to point out that in the article I only added a small factual adjectival phrase. I am arguing here on the discussion page that it should be left in the article. Some editors think that it should not remain. They argue that it should be removed and have in fact removed it. In essence they are winning the argument by force not by logic. after all, will the President discuss the ideologies and ethos of skull and bones with the american people- or not? that is the onlything that should be debated. What my point of view is has no bearing on wether or not the president will discuss s&bs with the american people. Will he or won't he? That is the only fact here that matters.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We have already offered sufficient explanation as to why your edit is unacceptable in this article. This is not the appropriate place for a political discussion. If you can find some verifiablesources supporting your assertions, then please add them. Until then, your edits remain unacceptable, IMHO. --ElKevbo23:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, my source is GWB's autobiography. Please explain to me how this is not a verifiable source. I am not having a poitical discussion. I am having a discussion about why my edit should stand. You have made your statement that 'you' believe that it should not be included in the article. Please don't accuse me of misusing wikipedia. Wikipedia is an open project. I have as much right as anyone to work here so long as I work ethically and try to adhere to wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the wikipedia NPOV tutorial is not wikipedia policy, what is it? Once again, I made a very simple edit:
"- a society so secretive that Bush will not discuss its ideologies or ethos with the american people."
This is a fact, it is not my personal point of view. If it were a personal point of view, you could state: "That's not true, he will discuss skull and bones with the american people."
I have already conceded that that is a fact not in dispute. My assertion remains that it is entirely redundant as S&B is a secret society. There's no reason to even state it. Trying to add it into the article with the implication that Bush's membership in S&B has far reaching ideological or political implications without supporting references is original research. --ElKevbo23:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I really can't understand your short temper on the subject: "We have already offered sufficient explanation as to why your edit is unacceptable in this article." Do you have some sort of personal ax to grind? What do you mean by we? Are you an organized opposition to edits in this article?
Once again, you don't respond to my questions but give me a warning instead. I am really disheartened. I will not however engage in any sort of personal argument. Instead I will try once again to show why the edit should be maintained. The Freedom of Information Act states:
"(2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying--
(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;
(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register; and
(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public;"
We see here that the office of the President is under obligation of law to make available to public inspection those statements of policyand interpretations that have been adopted by the agency.
Therefore, he must disclose to the american people what policies he must follow by "virtue" of his oaths taken on behalf of the secret society of which he is a member. Failure to do so violates existing US law. Of course you will argue that I don't understand this law either. That is your prerogative. I would do nothing to take that right away from you. Nevertheless, I believe that the President is breaking the law. I don't want to include my opinion of this in the article. That would clearly be a violation of NPOV. However I will use this argument to justify why my edit should be included.
Of course it should be included simply by virtue of being an undisputed fact. If it is a fact that shows where the president's allegences lie, then it is an important fact and should not be excluded.
additionally, I can provide you with many sources, articles, etc. that find it remarkable that President Bush will not discuss his membership in a society that takes the Jolly Rogers, the long time symbol of piracy, as its emblem.
"I spoke with about 100 members of Skull and Bones and they were members who were tired of the secrecy, and that's why they were willing to talk to me,” says Robbins. “But probably twice that number hung up on me, harassed me, or threatened me...”
...Ron Rosenbaum, author and columnist for the New York Observer, has become obsessed with cracking that code of secrecy.
“I think there is a deep and legitimate distrust in America for power and privilege that are cloaked in secrecy. It's not supposed to be the way we do things,” says Rosenbaum. “We're supposed to do things out in the open in America. And so that any society or institution that hints that there is something hidden is, I think, a legitimate subject for investigation...
...Prescott Bush, George W's grandfather, and a band of Bonesmen, robbed the grave of Geronimo, took the skull and some personal relics of the Apache chief and brought them back to the tomb,” says Robbins. “There is still a glass case, Bonesmen tell me, within the tomb that displays a skull that they all refer to as Geronimo...”
--- I think it is very interesteing that CBS news states that Prescott Bush stole Geronimo's skull. This shows that there has been theft associated with both the Bonesmen and the Bush family. More over it shows disrepect for the people they are supposed to lead.
If added to the article, your supposition that "it shows disrespect for the people they are supposed to lead" is clearly original research and thus impermissible in a Wikipedia article. --ElKevbo01:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
...Mr. Bush, like his father and grandfather before him, has refused to talk openly about Skull and Bones. But as a Bonesman, he was required to reveal his innermost secrets to his fellow Bones initiates...
---Here we see clearly that what he will do for his society, he will not do for the american people.
Well my wikipedia account was disabled, and I had to get an administrator to get my editing turned back on. That's one way to silence me.
BMIKESCI02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI
U.S. President John Quincy Adams. Adams stressed that those who take oaths to politically powerful international secret societies cannot be depended on for loyalty to a democratic republic.
BMIKESCI07:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI
Lord, are you preaching or what? You're arguing on something which is by definition hard - if not impossible to prove by any reputable source...and you're backing that up with your own opinions and the quotes of JQA? None of this merits entry. Read this.Squiggyfm07:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think there is real criticism about and concern over this issue. If BMIKESCI or anyone else can provide reliable, verifiable sources documenting this issue then I believe it may merit inclusion in the article. --ElKevbo18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Having a reliable source for a fact only gets you half way to including it in an article. You also have to have a source that demonstrates the fact is important enough to be in the article. For every fact that is in, many others do not have space, so what is in has to be justified by level of importance. That bar has not been met yet, and neither has even the first one. It's a non issue until both are. - TaxmanTalk17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We have a ways to go before adding this information to the article and it's entirely possible (likely?) that it won't be included even if there are good sources for it. I would like to think, however, that a very brief mention may be appropriate. If there really is a significant amount of criticism of this issue, then perhaps someone (not me!) needs to start a new article or consider adding it to the secret society article. --ElKevbo18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You may not think that it's important now, but wait till your social security is gorne: Well it's happened. Bush wants to privatize (piretize) social security. What do you expect from someone whose secret society (Skull & Bones) flies the jolly rogers as its standard.
Why would americans want this system piretized? BTW, I think that it is in possible bad taste to put an entry into this discussion under the name of taxman. It may give the impression that anyone who contributes here runs the risk of an audit.
Okay, the further I go into this discussion the more down right pissed I am getting. I'm SORRY that bush is trying to protect the country from terrorists, criminals, and the rising problem of complete and total idiots (such as you). Get it in your head. I will spell it out for you: B-U-S-H I-S N-OT- EV-I-L. H-E H-A-S N-O C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-N T-O E-V-I-L. Should I draw a picture to help you understand?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.246.255 (talk • contribs) 15:36, July 11, 2006
I think this whole discussion (on the Skull & Bones fraternity, Satanism, etc.) can be brought to a halt here. Just add one sentence under Early life, e.g. While at Yale, Bush was a member of the Skull & Bones fraternity, a secret student organisation; this has led to some controversy over his refusal to disclose secrets of the society upon taking office as President. As for the Satanism claim, this is completely unverified and appears to be utter garbage, so let's say no more about it. The article on the fraternity itself says nothing about it, and the whole thing appears to be totally above board. Walton monarchist8911:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Inspectors were in Iraq immediately before the invasion
The article says "Following failed diplomatic efforts to coax Saddam Hussein into yielding to weapons inspections, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.." but the inspectors were hard at work up to the point they were ordered out because of the impending invasion. How about a revision that says "Following failed diplomatic efforts to coax Saddam Hussein into full cooperation with weapons inspections, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.." The article Iraq War says 'Iraq agreed to the resolution and UNMOVIC began inspections on November 18, 2002, replacing UNSCOM which had previously been in charge of monitoring Iraq since April 3, 1991 [6][7]. Four months later on March 7, 2003, head of the inspectors, Hans Blix made his last presentation to the U.N. describing Iraq's cooperation in resolving oustanding issues as "active or even proactive," he went on to state "these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation."[8]' It further says 'At the time of the invasion UNMOVIC inspectors were ordered out by the United Nations. The inspectors requested more time as they were unable to account for the destruction of all proscribed items in the four months since inspections had resumed.[50][51]' Thus the present article is incorrect and POV in stating that Hussein refused to allow weapons inspections. In about a week from now I will make the suggested change barring any verifiable sources to the contrary.Edison16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I mentioned that above in "Before the War" but didn't get much a response. I don't know why the sentence was changed, it's original wording made alot more sense. Hopefully it will be changed. tmopkisntlka17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If your change is more in line with the cited sources or new sources you are going to add then please make the change. Why wait a week? --ElKevbo17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought allowing a chance for comment and wordsmithing might result in
a product which would not get immediately reverted by polemicists who want articles to be one sided. It allows a
Has anyone made a case for the reason that this template is on this page? I just noticed it, and considering this is an article about an American President, it makes little sense particularly when we have a section and an entire sub-article on public perception. I have made my case on the Project talk page that this templates are slapped on a little too many topics, particularly topics that are expected to be centric around a particular country. So unless there is a case for it, I say it should go. PPGMD00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
While trying to remove them I found that those tags are on the WOT template, I went to that template and removed them, tags such as those shouldn't be on templates, at least in the way that they were which gives the indication that the pages that include the template are the ones that need the editing.PPGMD13:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Paul Martin and Jean Chretien
The Liberal Party of Canada is a centrist party: By what stretch of the imagination might Jean Chretien and especially Paul Martin (a shipping magnate and fiscal conservative) be called "left wing politicians" pace the "public perceptions" section? Given this, a more expansive term such as "centrist and left-of-centre politicians" might be in order. Fishhead6400:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The Liberal Party of Canada is either left or more right wing depending on what votes they feel they need to receive in order to achieve power.JaysCyYoung02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The Liberals are generally considered left-wing, in relation to Canadian conservatives. Everything is relative, though, and by American standards are probably centrist - but not by Canadian ones. Best bet is to avoid use of these terms altogether when discussing Canadian politics in US articles.Michael Dorosh02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the Liberals are left-wing by Canadian standards, what does that make the New Democratic Party? I agree, such labels are unhelpful and relative to the perspective of the editor. Fishhead6404:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone please edit this weird grammar!
I put in bold face words to eliminate, and use italics to suggest substitions. Any hackers who can get past the padlock should fix this.
Faced with serious drinking issues and difficulties in his professional and personal life, Bush would abandoned his socializing lifestyle and began attending church regularly. In 1986, he would quit drinking alcohol, and following a personal meeting and exchange with Reverend Billy Graham, he would becomebecame a born-again Christian.[4] Changing his lifestyle, Bush also began studyingstudied the Bible and Christian philosophy, participating also in church and community study groups. Bush would movemoved his family to Washington, D.C. in 1988, to work on his father's campaign for the U.S. presidency. He would workworked with political activists Lee Atwater and Doug Wead to develop and coordinate a political strategy for courting conservative Christians and evangelical voters, which was seen as key to winning the party nomination and the election. Delivering speeches at rallies and fundraisers, Bush would also talk tospoke with representatives of conservative and religious organizations on behalf of his father.
I don't know what you mean by a "padlock"; the article is open for editing by all registered users, which should include you. As for your grammar and verbiage changes, they look OK to me. Go ahead and make them. Kasreyn08:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I seemed to be making progress, and fixed a lot of awful grammar and omitted some glaring and useless redundancies, while scrupulously avoiding any tampering with the biased tone and content of the Early Life and Texas Governor and the early Presidency sections. Then I arrived at the story of the Iraq war, and there the inaccuracies were coming at me so fast and furiously that I really had to start correcting the content a bit - and adding some content for balance. This was not sabotage - unless you really believe that Bush BEGAN preparations for war AFTER the UN Security Council refused to endorse military action (which would have allowed about a week to get all the ships and weapons and troops mobilized and moved into the vicinity)! When I clicked on "save page" what came up was the unaltered article, with all its nonsense intact.
For the record, here (BELOW) is what I attempted to insert. I will freely admit that I am not an enthusiastic supporter of either Bush or his war - but if the article had been written with any respect for truth and balance (as I assume the earlier sections were, more or less), I would have continued to simply edit for grammar and to eliminate meaningless redundancies. My own bias probably shows in my additions, but I think the result is generally closer to what a reader has a right to expect in an objective encyclopedia. The article as it was (and still is) reads like some kind of amateur campaign literature. I am boldfacing my additions that are most likely to cause offense. - Chelydra
Bush reputedly lacked interest in foreign affairs. His major changes to U.S. foreign policy included withdrawal from the 1998 Kyoto Protocol and from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, in order to pursue national missile defense.[1] International leaders also criticized Bush for withdrawing support for the International Criminal Court soon after he assumed the presidency. The administration voiced concern that the court could conceivably co-opt the authority of the United States' judicial system.[2] Bush publicly condemned the 'Stalinist' regime of Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, and expressed U.S. support for the defense of Taiwan following the stand-off in March 2001 with the People's Republic of China over the crash of a Chinese air force jet and the detention of U.S. personnel. In 2003-04, Bush authorized U.S. military intervention in Haiti and Liberia to restore order and oversee a transition to democracy. Although Bush's stands were lauded by Republicans and conservatives at home, global public opinion rose against his policies, and against America's hegemonic status the world's sole superpower.
Bush emphasized a "hands-off" approach to the conflict between Israel and Palestine in wake of rising violence and the failure of the Clinton administration's efforts to negotiate. Bush specifically disowned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for his support of the violence and militant groups, but following urgings from European leaders, became the first American president to embrace a two-state solution envisaging an independent Palestine existing side-by-side with Israel. Bush sponsored dialogue between Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas, but continued his administration's boycott of Arafat. Bush supported Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, and lauded the democratic elections held in Palestine following Arafat's death.
War on terrorism
The September 11th terrorist attacks were a major turning point in Bush's life and presidency. Bush was visiting an elementary school in Florida when chief of staff Andrew Card informed him that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. Later, following news of a second plane crashing, Bush left the school and flew to an air base before returning to Washington, D.C. in the late afternoon. That evening, he addressed the nation from the Oval Office, promising a strong response to the attacks but emphasizing the need for the nation to come together and comfort the families of the victims. On September 14, he visited Ground Zero, meeting with mayor Rudy Giuliani and firefighters, policemen and volunteers. In a moment captured by press and media, Bush addressed the roused gathering from atop a heap of rubble:
"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."
In a speech to the U.S. Congress, Bush declared war on terrorist groups and nations supporting terrorism across the world, and specifically endorsing the overthrow of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, which had been harboring training camps for Al Qaeda militants. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, which resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance with the help of U.S. special forces and bombing campaigns. Bush also backed secret programs to gather intelligence through the monitoring of bank funds and telephone records, and signed the controversial USA Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement agencies unprecedented powers.[3]
Iraq war
Following the successful overthrow of the Taliban, the Bush administration also promoted urgent action in Iraq, stating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and that in the post 9-11 world it was too dangerous to allow unstable regimes to possess weapons that could "potentially fall into the hands of terrorists." Bush also argued that Saddam was a threat to U.S. security, destabilized the Middle East, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and financed terrorists. CIA reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material, had not properly accounted for Iraqi biological weapons and chemical weapons material in violation of U.N. sanctions, and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions.[4]
Bush urged the United Nations to enforce Iraqi disarmament mandates, precipitating a diplomatic crisis. On November 132002, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. Lapses in Iraqi cooperation triggered intense debate over the efficacy of inspections. UN inspection teams, after reporting some progress and demanding more time were strongly advised by the U.S. to leave Iraq four days prior to full-scale hostilities.
[5]At the urging of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Bush administration initially sought a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.[6] However, upon facing vigorous opposition from several nations (primarily France and Germany, and several Security Council members who didn't appreciate the [London] Observer's revelations that their offices had been bugged by the U.S. ), the Bush administration dropped the bid for UN approval, while finalizing preparations for its invasion. The war effort was eventually joined by more than 20 other nations (most notably the United Kingdom) who were designated the "coalition of the willing".[7]
Military hostilities commenced on March 202003 to pre-empt Iraqi WMD deployment and remove Saddam from power, and successfully ended on May 1, 2003, when U.S. forces took control of Baghdad. The apparent success of U.S. operations would greatly increase Bush's popularity, but the U.S. forces would be challenged by public disorder, as well as increasing insurgency led by pro-Saddam and Islamist groups. The Bush administration was assailed in subsequent months following the report of the Iraq Survey Group, which found almost no trace of the weapons that the regime was said to possess. The 9/11 Commission report speculated that Saddam's government was actively attempting to acquire technology that would allow Iraq to produce WMD as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted.[8] However, the Commission found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMD. On December 14, 2005, while discussing the WMD issue, Bush stated that "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[9] However, Bush would remain unwavering when asked if the war had been worth it, and whether he would have made the same decisions if he had known more. For example, challenged by European reporters on the missing WMD issue, Bush replied by changing the subject, pointing out that "there are no more torture chambers" in Iraq - but then, perhaps remembering that Abu Grahib was starting to enter the news that very day, he quickly changed the subject back again. U.S. efforts in Iraq were supposed to be the centrepiece of Bush's grand strategic plan to discourage and defeat terrorists by removing tyrranical regimes, promoting democracy, and fostering social and economic development. As of 2006, three years after the conquest of Baghdad, the legitimacy of Iraq's new democratic process has been confirmed by the crushing electoral defeat of the Bush Administration's preferred presidential candidate, and the election of parties that demanded a speedy end of the occupation. However, economic conditions have apparently continued to deteriorate. According to the Brookings Institute's regularly updated Iraq reports, Baghdad's electricity, which was supplied for 20-24 hours every day under Saddam's rule, has steadily been reduced, down to an average of ten or twelve hours in 2004, six or eight hours in late 2005, and about four hours a day as of mid-2006. The results so far of the War on Terror, do not seem to be particularly encouraging. The Brookings Institute reports that the number of terrorist attacks worldwide in the year 2004 was 2,800. The total for 2005 was 11,111. (The Brookings chart only covers these two years.) [32]
It had nothing to do with "disliked" points of view. But using an opinion column as a source is not up to Wikipedia standards. Dubc072415:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The column was used as evidence of the alleged criticism and was thus used appropriately. I agree with BMF81 that your edit was in bad faith, particularly your edit summary asserting a "POV source." Sources are allowed to be POV; their presentation in Wikipedia is not. --ElKevbo15:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I also want to add that I do believe the previous wording could be cleaned up and tightened and I agree that the indefinite pronoun (?) "some" should be changed to reflect the identity of those who actually hold the opinion in question. --ElKevbo15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
About the weasel word "some", we could better specify replacing it with "many Bush opposers".--BMF8116:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be even more specific than that as we know exactly who is levelling this particular criticism: "Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials." --ElKevbo16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. Not sure about the edit being in "bad faith" but I'm fine with my revert being reverted. I am glad the weasel words are being addressed however. Thanks Dubc072417:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
OK...Reverted my revert, but corrected one of the grammar problems. Now that I've thought about this more, I'm not sure I agree with the statements above regarding "alleged criticism". Someone on here "allegedly criticized" Bush for being an (alleged) Satanist. Do we need to make room for that in the article? You can find a "source" for just about anything on the Internet. Where do we draw the line? Anyway, it's in your hands now...I'm not touching it. Thanks Dubc072418:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That part probably comes down to notability of the criticism and the critic. Former chief prosecutor of Nuremberg Trials says Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes - in. Guy on Wikipedia and miscellaneous bloggers say Bush might be a satanist - not in. ---DrLeebot12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
A very large part of this article is about Bush's first term. I would like to remove alot of it, as it goes into excessive detail. Any objections? Green caterpillar02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Rama's Arrow. The article does not seem overly long to me at this point. What material in specific do you want to cut, and why? Kasreyn12:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This article gets way too specific on Bush's first term, and there already is an article on it. In this article, we should have a smaller "summary" type thing. Green caterpillar16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. As long as 1.) a link to the main article on his first term is prominently featured, 2.) no content overall is removed, only moved, and 3.) the summary highlights most important points, I'd say it's a good idea. Kasreyn15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Signature of Bush
Someone can fix the signature and make it transparent. ~ Neo139 9:20pm, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Added bush to American rugby union footballers
Hi, I added Bush to that category, because he played rugby union for Yale university [33]. If you want to dispute it, please go on my talk page.--HamedogTalk|@10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Polls conducted in early 2006 showed an average of around 40% for Bush, up slightly from the following September, but still historically low from a President coming off of his State of the Union Address, which generally provides a boost.
This is clearly a mistake (the September "following" early 2006 hasn't happened yet), but even if the word "following" should be "previous", it still doesn't match what is seen in the accompanying graph. According to it, his approval ratings in early 2006 were (perhaps) slightly higher than in October and November of 2005, but certainly not September. - dcljr (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ronline ? 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
\(caint) 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
![[6]](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/art/pop_jesusday.jpg){kind=link}
