Talk:George H. W. Bush/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

George Bush

change ((George Bush)) to George Bush — Preceding unsigned comment added by For 2601:541:4304:E6B0:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk • contribs)

Can you please identify where in the article you would like this change made? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Couldn't find any place in the article that said "((George Bush))". SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Might be a failed attempt at triple parentheses. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Should the article mention that he's voting for Clinton?

I see that someone added a statement about Bush voting for Clinton in the upcoming election, but that the statement has since been removed, with the reasoning that there wasn't good enough sourcing. Considering that this information originated with a notable public official, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and has been corroborated by multiple anonymous sources close to Bush [1], I don't see why sourcing would be a problem. No one has even denied the claim. Bush's spokesperson has simply said that the former president will not publicly comment on the election. Jeb Bush has called Kennedy Townsend's decision to share this information "inappropriate", but hasn't suggested that the information is untrue. [2] This Politico article [3] was in use for the statement, but the information has also been reported upon by The Boston Globe, [4] ABC News, [5] BBC, [6] The Huffington Post, [7] The Washington Post, [8] Business Insider, [9] and CNN, [10] among many others. Even without a public endorsement, this is highly notable, fact-checked information, that doesn't appear to have been disputed by anyone. --Jpcase (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add this information to the article, as no one has yet objected, and I really don't think that the statement should be considered controversial. If anyone feels otherwise though, then feel free to revert and we can discuss. --Jpcase (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it, because a) it is hearsay; b) it violates WP:CRYSTAL, and c) the man is entitled to some amount of privacy, especially 24 years after leaving public office. If his PR folks released an official statement of support, or announcement of his intentions, or endorsement, or something like that, it would be a different story, but otherwise, this is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.  Frank  |  talk  00:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Frank: Thanks for weighing in. I'll leave the information out, until we've had a chance to discuss further. But I still stand by my view. This isn't hearsay - it's been corroborated by multiple people. And I don't think we can take Bush's desire for privacy into account. Whether or not it was appropriate of Kennedy Townsend to initially share this information with the public, she decided to so, and countless news sources have since reported upon it. WP:Crystal doesn't seem to apply here, as there's nothing speculative about the claim. If Bush released a statement denying that he is going to vote for Clinton, or if a family member of his denied it, then that would be another story. But so far, several people "in the know" have commented on this story, and none of them have denied the claim. And again, several people have confirmed the information to be true. I would be open to an RFC though, if you still have reservations. --Jpcase (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have reservations - I am explicitly saying that inclusion of this material on the basis of hearsay is against Wikipedia policy, including WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. The lack of denial by a person or his/her spokespersons is not "corroboration". We do not simply reprint things that someone says about another person just because it's reprinted in other reliable sources. How many people would be outed inappropriately on that basis? How many (more) rumored affairs and divorces would litter the pages of Wikipedia? We work hard around here to get it right; hearsay doesn't meet that bar. And yes, at least until 8 November, it is speculation to write in an encyclopedic article who one plans to vote for - even a former US President. I still say it's nobody's business anyway, but...I recognize that's the weakest reason to oppose its inclusion. That doesn't make it invalid, though. He didn't sit for an interview with intent to publish; nobody has reported this as anything more than a private conversation.  Frank  |  talk  03:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Frank: I understand your concerns for Bush's privacy, and I agree that there are instances in which it may be inappropriate to add personal information to a BLP, without direct disclosure from the article's subject. But I don't think that the vote of a former president is truly equivalent to someone's sex or marital life. When one is a public official (or former public official), that individual's political views and intentions definitely carry a certain amount of public interest and historical importance. Even if Bush never publicly comments on the matter, this doesn't qualify as "hearsay", and I disagree that there's anything speculative about it, as multiple individuals have corroborated Kennedy Townsend's statement. I suppose we don't know for sure that Bush will vote for Clinton, as technically, he could always change his mind. But there's ample evidence to support the claim that Bush intends to vote for Clinton. Even if this were speculative though, WP:CRYSTAL clearly states, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". --Jpcase (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I can see some of Frank's points, but still personally feel that it would be appropriate and worthwhile to have this information included. --Jpcase (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, in the new book The Last Republicans by Mark Updegrove, George H.W. Bush flat out admits for the record that he voted for Hillary Clinton. George W. Bush said he didn't vote for anyone.70.112.229.80 (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations

In the UK at least, the Guardian and the BBC are all over this story: does it warrant a mention, or is it an example of Recentism? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not just the British media. So is the American. I love him & think he's a good man (+ the health circumstances), but after 3 women accused him of groping, Wiki can't ignore it. Archway (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV -- can you explain why it shouldn't be here? Things like that exist in WJC or Trump's articles, or with Mark Halperin, etc. Why not him, despite the sympathetic circumstances (old on a wheelchair)? Archway (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

the power relationship did not exist in the Bush case. A very old man helpless in a wheelchair pushed around by an aide was in no way a physical or political or financial power threat to the woman. the evil is in misuse of power. Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the perceived power dynamic has any bearing on whether the (alleged) behaviour warrants a mention: surely the criteria are whether it's (1) significant and (2) widely-reported by reputable sources? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind recent-ism and due weight too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish, recent-ism. Multiple women have said he is a scandalous old goat who has committed acts of sexual abuse against women. The fact that he is elderly is irrelevant. The fact that it is recent is irrelevant; how many in MSM knew about Harvey Weinstein before last month? No one. The fact that he is in a wheelchair and looks helpless is irrelevant. People who are barely able to help themselves are still capable of the most horrific acts of sexual assault possible. As for the "power dynamic:" He is an ex-President of the United States and Director of Central Intelligence, with an aircraft carrier, a school of government and a library named after him and a net worth of $26 million. His eldest son is a former President of the United States and his second son is the former Governor of Florida. He is a man of great power and influence. Is that enough?98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that we have a fourth allegation - which took place in 2007, before Bush was in a wheelchair - this series of allegations definitely merits mention, probably as its own section in the article. Fixed245 (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The American media covers it, too. To suggest that bc he's old & sick then he cannot possibly harass women -- is deeply wrong. The allegations are disturbing, and show a possible patttern. It merits a mention in this article, although I am not in any way comparing him to Weinstein or Trump or even Mark Halperin. This is the low level of sexual harassment. Archway (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Here is a fourth allegation from 2006 [11] -- before he was in a wheelchair. And it comes from a Republican. Now, it is impossible not to include his sexual misconduct allegations in this article. I am writing this as someone who does not oppose/hate him politically. I just think Wiki can't cover up all of this & show a double standard between him & other presidents. Archway (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Something else to bear in mind -- his spokesman has not only acknowledged the details of the stories but has also apologized for Bush's behavior.

Addendum to above: it's now five women. http://www.pressherald.com/2017/10/27/fourth-woman-says-president-george-h-w-bush-groped-her-in-photo-shoot/

Yep, 5 women. No rape, "just" groping. But Wiki can't ignore it -- I'm not going to do it but hope there will be a consensus. It's not "recent-ism". Oh, wait, I saw this is now in the article, so I retract my criticism. Archway (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the word "Multiple" is needed in the section title because "allegations" is already plural. I won't make a change (yet) to see if anyone else has any thoughts about this.

RE: Laura Bush -- I hope that people stop fighting over including her comments in the Sexual misconduct allegations. Even though she is H.W. Bush's daughter-in-law, she resides in Dallas and is not in daily contact with him, whereas his spokesman's JOB is to be his mouthpiece. Also, please stop fighting over when he started using a wheelchair as 1) this is a well-established fact and 2) you can see from the photos taken with his accusers whether or not he was in a wheelchair.70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

15 November 2017: Just letting everyone know that I'm aware of the 7th allegation (Megan Elizabeth Lewis) as well as an 8th (a former flight attendant per DemocracyNow.org). However, the stories published by NJ.com and DemocracyNow seem very light on details and sourcing, so I'm reluctant to add them at this time.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

16 November 2017: I've added the CNN story about the unnamed Michigan woman. She provided a picture of the alleged incident.Posters5 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Does a sentence about the sexual misconduct allegations belong in the lead?

It's hard to think of anything HW-related that's gained more attention since at least his son's presidency. So I say yes. We could say, "[i]n 2017, several women made allegations of groping against Bush, dating back to 1992, as part of the Weinstein effect. Bush did not deny the allegations and apologized." Nick845 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I can think of two other big events: 1) He trashed Cheney and Rumsfeld in the Meacham book. 2) He trashed Trump.70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's talked about a lot of people. Sexual misconduct allegations, relating to him personally, are on another level of importance. Nick845 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait a bit. I actually like how you worded the proposed sentence. However, it's still early days in the life cycle of both the Weinstein effect as well as the fallout from the allegations against Bush. The full scope is not yet known, with new allegations still being made. Let's wait a bit, perhaps until December 1 at the least so that we can see how all of this unfolds.70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nick845 -- Dunno if you saw, but the allegations now have an international scale. A Spanish interpreter alleged that he groped her in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

Change:

Bush stressed the importance of the job of ''[[USS La Salle]]'' crew members as "one of the most important jobs in the world" while in Bahrain,

To:

Bush stressed the importance of the job of {{USS|La Salle|AGF-3|6}} crew members as "one of the most important jobs in the world" while in Bahrain,

Because: Disambiguates to the correct ship instead of the ship index page, and formats the ship name correctly per the MOS. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed two sentences that were not actually about the subject or only trivially about subject, including the one that contains the requested disambiguation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

its nt very accurate with the early life part 100.15.19.57 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. You didn't actually request any changes. If there are errors, you need to be more specific so we can work together to fix them. CityOfSilver 22:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George H. W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427205622/http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/ to http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George H. W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061145/http://www.rgkcenter.org/sites/default/files/file/research/gettingtoyes.pdf to http://www.rgkcenter.org/sites/default/files/file/research/gettingtoyes.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822042704/http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03/former-presidents-gather-for-tribute-to-george-hw-bush-volunteer-service.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03/former-presidents-gather-for-tribute-to-george-hw-bush-volunteer-service.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations

Janice Fiamengo is right. This is WP:UNDUE, likely a WP:BLP issue and the whole lot positively reeked of WP:NOTNEWS. Anonymous claims do not suffice to smear a reputation and are not WP:RS's by a lightyear. Kleuske (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nick845: Discuss your point here. Also be aware that WP:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) and WP:Neutral Point of View (WP:UNDUE) are not just a few acronyms, they're core policies and not subject to consensus. Kleuske (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

All you've done is name the policies. You need to put in the effort to explain how the content you've unilaterally removed conflicts with any of those policies. The allegations received sustained media coverage from very reliable sources; you're welcome to Google it. There were eight of them in total, and I think only two were anonymous - both still published by good sources, one accompanied by a picture. Your version excludes the majority of those allegations without even mentioning they exist. Ultimately, this is a massive article about a man with a long and varied life. The point isn't to protect people's reputations, but even if it is, a handful of paragraphs backed by reliable reporting leaves his reputation well-intact. Nick845 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. In the context of the career of a former POTUS, your preferred version lends WP:UNDUE weight to a man with parkinsons desease telling dirty jokes. Besides, anonymous allegations are not exactly WP:RS, so at the very least they have to go. I've 'unilaterally' removed it since A) i'm being WP:BOLD and b) WP:BLP demands it (see section balance). There are no allegations of felonies or even misdemeanors, hence the section lends undue weight to a rather minor affair, particularly given the fact that this section is longer than the one describing his CIA activity, again that's a violation of WP:NPOV (WP:BALANCE). My version mentions other allegations exist, and that's all they are: unsubstantiated allegations. Some women alleging the former POTUS told dirty jokes and 'touched them inappropriately' (whatever that means). Kleuske (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you were bold. You were also wrong. It doesn't matter what you think of any aspect of the quality of the allegations. They earned plenty of coverage from the mainstream media. The section was a pittance relative to his entire page and the section on his post-presidency. Nick845 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I also wish to stress that GHW Bush is a former public figure by our our definition. When the allegations were made, he was a private person. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are doing can be construed by some as an attempted cover-up for a serial sexual harasser. 8 women have accused Bush. They, like Clinton's, Trump's & others deserve to be heard. It's irrelevant he's a former president. Most of the accusation against the current POTUS were also when he was a private citizen. Thus, you're likely violating WP:EW solely on the basis that there's a stable version, but you're arguing w/out merits, perhaps based on a political motive, to remove it. I'm not writing this w/ a political motive -- I think every alleged harasser, Democrat or Republican, ought to be treated seriously w/ credible allegations as such. Archway (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The claims such "he's old"/"it's gossip"/anonymous allegations" don't hold water here. He's no different than other presidents & powerful figures in the media., Hollywood. etc. Think some specifics are not neutral? go ahead and argue for it, & get a majority to agree. But for 1, from CNN, all of the allegations are not anonymous & are credible & from reputable organizations. Archway (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As I argued on WP:BLP/N, it's a case of WP:UNDUE/WP:BALANCE/WP:BLP, which require the alleged incidents be reported proportionally. If some alleged incidents are covered more extensively than (say) his CIA-career, they get disproportional weight in the article. "Powerful figures in the media" does not hold water, since the ex-prez does not have any actual power (and isn't in Da Media). Kleuske (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. See consensus here. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus, just you yelling at several other people and attempting to ignore the allegations of patting/groping by only referencing the "cop a feel" "joke".

There's a lot of nonsensical hand-wringing here. Bush has apologized for his behavior, which means that he's also acknowledged the patting/groping.~~

Read it again and you'll find the consensus that the version I removed was too lengthy. There was no yelling or handwringing and nothing was denied. Concerns were raised as to WP:UNDUE weight. Whether or not Bush acknowledged anything is beside the point. Kleuske (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning was flawed; much of Bush's work at the CIA is probably still classified, which would explain why that particular section is short. You're just sore because your hero is a lech.

You fail to make an argument. Any other section can serve as an example, too. As has been pointed out in the discussion on [BLP notice board, this is a minor footnote in an long career an not one that will have lasting effects, so a few sentences should suffice. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur; in the grand scheme of Bush-41's life, lengthy coverage of this episode in this particular article is WP:UNDUE. Perhaps, in a Post presidency of George H. W. Bush article it would not be, but this is not that article. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

First, write in proper English. If you keep making mistakes in grammar and punctuation, then I'll keep reverting you, regardless of the substance of what you say. Second, that discussion took place without me, and I didn't see a consensus as to any specific wording. Third, you're not the one to make a judgment about the scandal's effect on his legacy. Let the readers decide. Nick845 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick845, I have reverted your edit of 13:26 EDT, March 26, 2018 because it is inappropriate for you to jump back in after 8 weeks, declare in your edit summary "I'm back", and restore information you added through 2 edits on February 3, 2018, both of which were reverted for cause (as noted above) that same day. Please observe BRD (BOLD, revert, discuss), and don't restore your now-twice reverted changes until and unless a consensus is reached concerning the matter. Drdpw (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you been following along? There was a consensus regarding the previous version of the section, which someone else decided to revert without discussion. Your advice is better directed toward that someone - clearly, neither you nor he have gained a consensus. Do keep up. Nick845 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there was not a consensus concerning what to write about the November 2017 allegations against GHW Bush. In early December 2017, Kleuske reverted details he believed contravened WP:UNDUE & WP:BLP, and you've been engaged in an edit war ever since, reverting or undoing edits in order to preserve the details you wish included, no matter what. The section in question was stable from February 3 until today ([12]) when you jumped back in, so please, discus the subject here and stop being disruptive on the article page. Drdpw (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox Image Change

Option A

Option B

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I am opening this thread to discuss replacing the current infobox picture for this article. I propose replacing the current image of President George H.W. Bush (Option A) because it is off-center and does not provide a close-up view of his face like infobox pictures for other U.S. Presidents. As an alternative, here is a cropped version of the same image (Option B) that places Bush's figure within the center of the frame and provides a close-up of his face while still keeping the American flag within view. For your review, I have provided a side-by-side comparison of both images. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: I'm okay with replacing the current GHWB image, as proposed. Drdpw (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option B: Good argument, plus option b is more centered. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• support Rule of thirds, composition, presidential look, bla bla bla... No problems with either version, really, but your argument makes sense. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Seeing as how there's 3 votes in favor of changing the infobox picture and 0 against, I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Thank you all for your participation.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

GHWB term of service as Chairman of the Harris County (Texas) Republican Party

Dates of service were Feb. 20, 1962 - Jan. 6, 1964 - see [13] vdavidiuk 22:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

It has come to my attention that a recently occurring event has not been added, the death of his wife, Barbara, who just died April 17, 2018, but his biography still says that she's living.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Drawn into WW2?

The US Navy had been firing at Axis ships and submarines in the Battle of the Atlantic for months before Pearl Harbor. (81.135.14.7 (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC))

Y I've changed was drawn into to formally entered. In the future, please frame your request "change 'x' to 'Y'" Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

Change "Bush pledged the US would planned military pullout from Grenada during a rally" to "Bush pledged the US would proceed with a planned military pullout from Grenada during a rally" Alcon01 (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done ToThAc (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP violation; weasel words?

Article now has:

"Sexual misconduct allegations

In October 2017, during the #MeToo movement, actress Heather Lind accused Bush of groping her and telling an inappropriate joke. Eight other women subsequently made similar allegations, including Christina Baker Kline and Roslyn Corrigan (who was 16 years old at the time of the alleged incident). Bush has apologized for these incidents through his spokesman, Jim McGrath."

Is this a BLP violation? What do "groping" and "inappropriate" mean? IMHO these are vague weasel words. Precisely what did Lind accuse Bush of? And if he did not specifically admit to a specific evil action, this should be deleted. Also, it is doubtful that someone apologizes through a spokesman. (PeacePeace (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC))

1959-1964? Why the hiatus?

It looks like the period 1959-start of 1964 is omitted. Why so? (PeacePeace (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC))

It's not omitted; rather, nothing noteworthy in the "grand scheme" of his life happened between the 1959 move with Zapata Oil and his election as Harris County GOP chairman in 1963. Drdpw (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Trial of foreign policy

I'm already anticipating I have much to say about the recent deletion of every single addition I made today by @Drdpw:. I gathered the idea for the Foreign policy of the George H. W. Bush administration from seeing similar patterns of summaries of main articles being made on the pages of other recent presidents so I worked on that article for about three months and then wrote out the summaries for about two hours this morning, attempting to sort out which things mattered the most to include. In all, about a 3/10 of that article made it on here, the added material (30,575 bytes) being smaller than that for either Barack Obama (52,005 bytes) or George W. Bush (66,479 bytes). I can say that the act committed today was nothing more than wanting to delete just to delete. There wasn't even an attempt by Drdpw to attempt to retain some material, if I am to believe he was so concerned about the importance of material. He wouldn't even keep the link redirecting to the foreign policy article in spite of his claims that such an article made all the information I added invalid, effectively rendering there to be no way a person who came on the page would even see the article he was saying made my additions unneeded. To paraphrase @Tvoz:, the summary left by Drdpw were "disparaging comments" directed at an editor "who work hard here to keep our articles in good shape". I wouldn't have sat here sourcing and acquiring material for months if I didn't care and I wouldn't have spent hours trying to sift through what was important if I wasn't concerned in attempting to make the article "to be comprehensive but also accessible to our readers". The fact that the final summary I decided upon was smaller than all of the others for which I based my material off of show that this edit revert was just a spiteful way of virtually spitting in my face for making an attempt that much thought and concern was put into. I can already anticipate the defenses, overlooking the facts I just mentioned, but there won't be any acknowledgement of how backwards everything said in that summary was to everything done in that edit. - Informant16 14 May 2018

Keeping/restoring the "main" tag seems fine. I don't see any need for the other 30kB of summary in an already too long article; we write in summary style. VQuakr (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how the article is "already too long" when it's smaller than Obama, the younger Bush, and Trump by a wide margin even with my additions. And how is reducing paragraphs about each country to a single one for several of the ones written on the other article not "in summary style"? You want me to believe that nothing out of the summary was notable. You want me to believe that 3/10 of the other article wasn't already a summary? - Informant16 14 May 2018

Target length of an article is 4,000-10,000 words of prose per WP:LENGTH. No, no one has claimed that notability is an issue here. VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's length is still smaller than the other good article president articles so it's now been established that for the sake of continuing the coup against my additions, you want to attempt to throw out facts with mentions of WP:OTHERSTUFF that serve to attempt dismissing validity in what cannot be denied. - Informant16 14 May 2018

Creation of a more detailed article such as Foreign policy of the George H. W. Bush administration should result in a reduction of this article's length, not an increase. This is how we organize articles as discussed at WP:SUMMARY; your interpretation of it as a personal affront is unproductive. Length comparison to other articles invariable leads to bloat, which is why we have established independent length metrics. Pushing this article from ~13 kwords to ~16 kwords when 10 kwords is our targeted maximum is obviously the wrong direction. VQuakr (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Here I was thinking that the main points of the separate article was providing a more detailed version of what was on the main, which was missing information on handling of multiple countries. So we've established that the text which is claimed to be too much is smaller than that of other recent presidents and that multiple countries had no entries, with ones that only had a sentence on them added by me being deleted for being too much. In short, I apologize for attempting to add information to the site and I'll try to be less productive in the future. Informant16 14 May 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

In the first sentence, please replace "is an American politician" with "is a retired American politician" because otherwise it sounds like he might still be in some other sort of office. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Discussion can continue without this being a formal edit request. I'll begin it by noting that the lead sentences for Clinton, Obama, and Bush the Younger all use the phrase "an American politician". It's not clear to me why this guy's article should be different. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Mark Hausknecht, George H.W. Bush’s former cardiologist, shot and killed while biking to work

Surveillance images show gunman behind George H.W. Bush's former doctor moments before murder http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/23/surveillance-images-show-gunman-behind-george-h-w-bushs-former-doctor-moments-before-murder.html StreetSign (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Created new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Murder_of_Dr._Mark_Hausknecht StreetSign (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

! Please don't respond to StreetSign's post here, rather, post your comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 21#Mark Hausknecht. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Tragic. But WP:NOTNEWS. Kleuske (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur (and have clarified the intent of my above post). Drdpw (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect rank

In the info panel lists the president’s former navy rank as Lieutenant. He was a Lieutenant Junior Grade. The shoulder board rank icon next it is correct. MichaelCullen (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just submitted this change. Note that, on whitehouse.gov, the casing of "Junior Grade" is in parentheses, and matches the casing of "Lieutenant". So they're both lowercase, or they're both Capitalized, or they're both in ALL CAPS. I chose Capitalized. Dotyoyo (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Place of death was in Houston, Texas not Kennebunkport, Maine, U.S. as stated.

Source can be found at https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/george-h-w-bush-dead/index.html 99.6.157.197 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done SounderBruce 06:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Former U.S. President died at the age of 94 fox news 203.10.91.85 (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: SounderBruce 06:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

George W. Bush Sr died on September 30, 2018. BoB121isawesome (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: SounderBruce 06:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

President Bush died at his home in Houston, Texas, not in Kennebunkport, Maine

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/politics/george-hw-bush-dies.html?smid=tw-nytimes 69.209.231.11 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Already fixed SounderBruce 07:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

In the 2016 election section, please change "Both Bushes emerged as frequent critics" to "Both George H. W. and George W. Bush emerged as frequent critics". Reason: there are three Bushes in the previous sentence. 2001:BB6:4708:9258:C834:B530:6ECE:9561 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Izno (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

Change "Poppy". to "Poppy." with the period punctuation INSIDE the quotation marks. Meteyer (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out, Meteyer.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 04:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The period should go outside the quotation using the "logical quotation" style described and prescribed by WP:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside. (ping:1,2) --Pipetricker (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Pipetricker, for fixing that. I never realized that was the case, I had just assumed that the guidelines were the same as the normal American English/British English ones; my apologies.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Acting President of the United States

Should Acting President of the United States be included in the infobox for this article? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not in the way you tried. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, so you agree that the change needs to be made? Can I count that comment as Support? - Sleyece (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See comments at Dick Cheney article. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush/Archive 7
41st President of the United States
In office January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Vice President	Dan Quayle
Preceded by	Ronald Reagan
Succeeded by	Bill Clinton
Acting President of the United States
In office July 13, 1985 – July 13, 1985
President	Ronald Reagan
43rd Vice President of the United States
In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan
Preceded by	Walter Mondale
Succeeded by	Dan Quayle

-- Sleyece (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See my proposed infobox, below. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush
41st President of the United States
In office January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Vice President	Dan Quayle
Preceded by	Ronald Reagan
Succeeded by	Bill Clinton
43rd Vice President of the United States
In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 Acting President: July 13, 1985
President	Ronald Reagan
Preceded by	Walter Mondale
Succeeded by	Dan Quayle

• Support I really like this proposal. It adds the necessary information without being too overlong. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The very short time Bush spent as acting president during which he apparently did nothing of note has little relevance, if any, to his biography. Maybe mention it in the text, but there is no reason to clutter the infobox with this trivia. Deli nk (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment See here. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw there – you torpedoed your own ship. Drdpw (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I countered your logic. You replied "you're failing badly." because you have no counter argument. Also, while DC and H.W. were Acting President they had the power to torpedo ships all over the world if they wanted. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, I apologize. It was another user that said "you are failing badly". Ignore the first part. My torpedo quip still stands, though. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment If there is no further opposition, I will make the proposed change, as amended, in three server days. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not okay for you to go ahead and make the change, as consensus to do so does not exist. Drdpw (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A blanket NO. does not build a consensus. Please build a consensus. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Sleyece, multiple editors, including myself, have expressed doubts concerning whether the few hours that Bush-41 spent as acting president are really noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox. You have failed to build an adequate case for its inclusion and have not swayed my opinion. Drdpw (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sway your opinion. I'm trying to build an Encyclopedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Are any other users ready to add to the consensus on this issue? -- Sleyece (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sleyece:, I see that you have again dismissed the objections of others and have unilaterally declared a consensus for adding acting president data to the infobox, which is not appropriate to say the least. Please revert your edit until and unless there is consensus to add the material to the infobox. Drdpw (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add to the consensus that it does not belong in the box. It's an insignificant event in the life of Bush. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – trivia doesn't belong in the infobox. Leave it for his VP section. I would also recommend you wait until we have a consensus, and not get yourself into an edit war Sleyece. Corky 17:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I reckon my proposal isn't going to be adopted. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

you should remove the word of incumbent when listing president trump. 38.131.4.50 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: he is the incumbent. See Merriam Webstel - "the holder of an office or ecclesiastical benefice" - Trump is the holder of the office of president. DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

Dead people are not "former". We don't for example, refer to Cary Grant as a "former British-American actor" just because he is no longer acting. 14.2.163.201 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Izno (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Bush, still the longest lived US President

Perhaps the wording needs to be adjusted to say that Bush is (still) the longest lived US President. Carter would have to survive past March 2019, to take that mantle. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

When you hover over the extended confirmed lock, it says it is protected to promote compliance with biographies of living people. Because GHWB recently died, can you change the caption in the extended confirmed lock to something else? 173.166.74.233 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ProgrammingGeek - You should be aware that WP:BLP still applies to people who have recently died despite what the policy's name might indicate (WP:BDP). Best, Mifter (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

Alan G. Fiers should be changed to Alan D. Fiers Truthandfairness (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I changed it to "Alan Fiers", --Pipetricker (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the word

i see dumb by the beginning of the sentense, please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desert2004 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

the main article says he was the 43rd president... he was the 41st president.. Meljones458 (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

certainly a mistake, due to the fact that the 43rd President is Bush 43 and is actually one son of Bush 41. --Wisdood (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

The 2nd sentence of this article states that "Bush served as the 43rd Vice President". --Pipetricker (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

Suggestion: remove the ad for wikipedia donations at least temporarily, it's extremely tacky at this particular time. 65.117.89.154 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Note: I believe that is a software thing. If your not logged in it will automatically show. If your logged in then it you can dismiss the banner and it won't show. A better place to discuss this would be WP:VPM Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

Hara Krishna

Krishna23456 (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 04:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Godspeed President Bush cartoon

I noticed this page has been protected from vandalism. I was planning to add a paragraph there describing the newly-surfaced cartoon by Marshall Ramsey featuring George, Barbara, and Robin together in heaven, which would go like this:

Following his death, a cartoon titled Godspeed President Bush by Marshall Ramsey, of The Clarion-Ledger, started to circulate, showing George H.W. being greeted by his wife Barbara and their daughter Robin (who died of leukemia at age 3) upon his arrival to heaven on a TBM Avenger, the type of airplane he flew as a Navy pilot during World War II. The cartoon was a follow-up to an earlier Ramsey cartoon widely circulated after Barbara's death, where she too was greeted by Robin upon entering heaven.

References

--SilSinn9821 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how a political cartoon with no political implications is worth mentioning. SounderBruce 19:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, yes both of the artist cartoons are appropriate and heartfelt, but hardly Encyclopedic. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I mention it because Robin's Wikipedia article made mention of the April 2018 cartoon (before I joined Wikipedia) and thought it would be OK to mention the new December 2018 cartoon here, since I see no controversy in it. If there is a different Wikipedia article where this brief paragraph could be best placed (instead of this biographical article), please tell me. Thankee! --SilSinn9821 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not controversial, it treads on WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bush Rotunda.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The deletion request was closed as keep (request withdrawn). --Pipetricker (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2018

In section Death and funeral, change "George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Point, Texas" to "George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas" Ting He (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush’s early life and education

The 3rd paragraph in this section discusses George H.W. Bush early leadership positions at Phillips Academy. However the source cited for that paragraph dicusses a scholarship introduced at his high school reunion and does not mention any information about his high school career or any of the extracurricular activities that he was involved with. 888888jdog (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Not true: the cited source does in fact mention all the extracurricular activities mentioned in the "Early life and education" section. --Pipetricker (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018

EeekSophi (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Change "is" to "was" at the beginning of the page.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing Tarpley book from Further Reading section

I am removing this book from the Further Reading section:

* {{Cite book |last=Tarpley |first=Webster G.| authorlink = |author2=Chaitkin, Anton |title=George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography |origyear=1991|year=2004 |publisher=Executive Intelligence Review |location=Washington |isbn=0-930852-92-3}}

I do not think it merits inclusion; Any contrary opinions, let's discuss. KConWiki (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Further Reading

I just suggest for your bibliography/reading list near the end of the article: Borucki, Wesley B. (2011). Italic text George H.W. Bush: In Defense of Principle.' Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1611221336. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvannostrum (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush's rank while serving (USN)

Hi, I'm currently serving in the US Navy and noticed a discrepancy in George H.W. Bush's information page. He is listed as being a Lieutenant Junior Grade, which is an O-2 in the USN, but the page also lists him as an O-3, which is a Lieutenant. I don't personally know which rank he actually was, due to him serving and being a distinguished pilot/ aviator for 3ish years in the USN at wartime, I would guess he was probably an O-3. If someone could please rectify this that would be great, thanks.

SN Jolls, Jordan T. USN165.166.160.118 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Bush signed the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which was the single greatest legislative advance for clean air in America. The 1990 CAA required control of industrial toxic emissions, which are defined in the 1990 CAA as one of the 188 chemicals that are suspected or known to be cancer-causing. This was the first time that the federal government regulated air pollution by focusing not only on reducing ambient concentrations of the six CAA criteria pollutants (e.g., lead, ozone, particulate matter, etc.) but instead by focusing on reducing of the number of tons of toxics emitted by pollution sources. For 'major sources' (those emitting more than 10 tons of any one toxic or 25 tons of a combination of toxics), they all had to install the latest and greatest controls to reducing emissions, under a program known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology. This was a sea-change in the nature of federal regulation of air pollutants in America, and the direct result of the 1990 CAA amendments has been much cleaner air throughout America over the last 25 years. George H W Bush was therefore the greatest pro-clean air environmentalist in American history.

2601:1C2:280:325C:1122:7984:D320:5BB8 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Conde T. Cox Portland OR~

1) Language isn't neutral. 2) Presidents don't actually draft legislation (Congress does). 3) I'm pretty sure many environmentalists feel that Bush fell short with regards to achieving better air quality.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Spin off the post-presidency section

Given Bush's long post-presidency I think it would make sense to create a spinoff article of that part of his career. This would allow for Wikipedia to cover his post-presidency in detail, while having a more concise summary on his main bio page. We have such articles for Ford, Carter, and Clinton. It would probably be a mistake to make major edits to this article right now (given the high level of interest/editing), but perhaps this could be done next month or so. Thoughts/interest? Orser67 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the post-presidency section as that long in an article that is shorter already than most recent presidents. If content was added to other sections of this article pertaining to earlier periods of his life, which I attempted to do before the deletionists came around, I would be more open to the possibility. - Informant16 19:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Politician, Statesman, Diplomat?

I know calling someone a "statesman" is often seen as biased, but GHWB had so much experience in many fields (diplomacy, intelligence, national politics) that it seems to me he was more than solely a politician. I know there was a discussion like this after McCain died, which concluded to keep "politician" as the primary descriptor, but I think it is fairly accepted that GHWB was, per M-W Dictionary: 1 : one versed in the principles or art of government especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies. 2 : a wise, skillful, and respected political leader. PerhapsXarb (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"a wise, skillful, and respected political leader" Who respects him (or respected him)? His perceived mishandling of the Early 1990s recession in the United States, a constant rise in unemployement, and the subsequent jobless recovery had left Bush with a particularly poor reputation. Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Alas, who respected Truman when he left? Nearly nobody, yet today he is widely respected. GHW Bush is generally seen as a decent, middle-tier president, next to JQ Adams and WH Taft in aggregate rankings (Historical rankings of presidents of the United States). The respect is less important than the experience, though, since Bush had so many diplomatic and intelligence related positions as well as political ones. "Statesman" tends more to be used to refer to people involved in numerous high-ranking positions, including on an international level, e.g. Arthur Goldberg and Charles Evans Hughes in the US. Admittedly, it is usually used in a context of those people having lived some time ago, but this is more a constructed part of the word's definition and not an actual prerequisite of any sort. PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Parkinson's and anti-parkinsonian medication

Please discuss this here to avoid a pointless edit war. Specifically, the allegations with the women were during the time he was affected by Parkinson's. At least one incident was before his continued use of a wheelchair. I think that could be where another user got the impression the incidents which were apologized for happened before his having Parkinson's.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

His vascular version is caused by a series of small strokes rather than a degeneration of the brain cells. They are not usually treated with the same medications. May need to confirm if on any medication that potentially causes impulse control problems. 68.35.177.107 (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The earliest of these incidents took place in the early 2000s. You can't blame his meds for things he did before he was taking them.Posters5 (talk)

I found an article: The l-dopa response in vascular parkinsonism It says that L-Dopa is the only medication, but it doesn't always work. Still, even if he was on no medication at all, vascular parkinsonism still has "diffuse white matter lesions and/or strategic subcortical infarcts in the MRI of the brain"

This page lists symptoms. It says that impulse control is a symptom for vascular parkinsonism, though it is more frequent in a different kind of parkinsonism. Other symptoms of vascular parkinsonism, cognitive impairment, including executive function, verbal memory and language.

On this basis I am going to re-add the sentence, but with a caveat about medication. We don't know if he was even on medication. It seems that it sometimes doesn't work for the vascular version.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That's even worse because now you are indulging in idle speculation. 1) You were not his personal physician, and if you were, you shouldn't be editing this page at all. 2) You don't know when the disease started to affect him, so you can't just "explain" his behavior by attributing it to Parkinson's. 3) This is in dispute and still being discussed, so stop re-adding disputed content.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The content I recently added was substantially revised. I will revise it again and see if that is good enough. I think you are making personal inferences that were not in the edit.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you're the one making unfounded inferences.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Single term presidents

Introduction: "He was also one of two former presidents to have served only a single term in office as president, the other being Jimmy Carter." What about the other presidents who only served a single term? Ford, Hoover, Taft Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:F931:3600:92C:DF16:1A82:744C (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not still alive, and the sentence seems to cover only those living. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed that line. The IP is correct, as it read as though Bush & Carter were the only one-term former US presidents. Remember every former US president was alive at one time. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

...except Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. 142.165.187.77 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Replaced it with something more accurate - "Bush's death leaves Carter as the only living former one-term American president". GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That was my addition, and I missed an important word. It was supposed to say "At the time of his death, Bush was one of two living presidents to have served one term, the other being Jimmy Carter." I missed the word "living", hence where the problem was: Bush and Carter,as noted above, were not the only one term presidents. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

George H. W.'s summer home was the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. He wrote of his memories there to Portland Magazine in 1997 after reading the article "Inventing the Campbells." The Campbells were the heirs to the Palm Beach clothing fortune and had a home in the Kennebunks. "I really enjoyed that article about the Campbells by Colin Sargent, July/August 1997). I remember Connie, Babs, and Bill—remember them well and very favorably. Connie was the glamour girl, all right. When she would flash by in that neat little Chris Craft, blonde hair flying, all us little guys, who were madly in love with her—from afar, that is—used to sigh and dream. We would hang around hoping that this the most glamorous of women would give us a ride in that flashy boat. Barbara was a wonderful girl, too. Just my age—so my friends and I were not quite as intimidated by her as we were by the slightly older Connie. Anyway, your story brought back many happy memories… President George Bush, Houston, Texas" Bagheera814 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2018

ADD Honorary Degree: Wheaton College (IL), Doctor of Laws (LL.D.), 1985 174.24.117.244 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

During Trump presidency

This section should probably mention that, due to his health, Bush did not attend Trumps inauguration (he and his wife were the only living first couple not in attendence). SecretName101 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

Add 1973 Honorary Degree from Northern Michigan University. Received honorary Doctor of Laws. See https://www.nmu.edu/Webb/ArchivedHTML/campus/2004/0719/politicians.htm 2601:404:C67F:E6D2:E10B:AB7C:D4F7:A02F (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Because the information for this claim comes from only one source based on the original research from the author Magnaghi who gleaned it from the book he wrote titled, "A Sense of Time: The Encyclopedia of Northern Michigan University", and because this claim would be significant--in that it would be the first honorary degree received by Bush, in 1973 which predates all of the others--it is thought that a second source should be provided to be sure.  Spintendo  22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Earlier CIA involvement

Would like to add:

Beginning in 1960 or 1961, Bush was a clandestine employee or agent of the United States Central Intelligence Agency using as cover his work in the petroleum production business. In that role, he appears to have been associated with CIA-affiliated anti-Castro Cubans who had been involved in the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. When confronted with a 1963 Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum evidencing his being a CIA operative, Bush issued a non-denial denial. --NYCJosh (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate statement on Bush's civil rights voting record

This bio contains inaccurate statement on Bush voting record on Civil Rights. The NY Times article below documents that Bush had mixed record and had opposed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, but later voted for Fair Housing Act of 1968 as political winds shifted

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/09/weekinreview/the-nation-when-the-subject-is-civil-rights-there-are-two-george-bushes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6000:7A40:B884:8A21:C8A7:ACD9 (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The article should explain the nickname "Bush 41"

he was referred to as "George H. W. Bush", "Bush 41"

Could some one add an explanation about this nickname "Bush 41", "41" as the 41th US president. I do not have sufficient edit privileges to edit myself the code... --Wisdood (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wisdood: Perhaps the first sentence of the article stating he served as the 41st president, with the additional mention that W. was the 43rd, is enough explanation? Or would something like this be an improvement?:

..., he was referred to as "George H. W. Bush", "George Bush Sr.", or as he was the 41st president, "Bush 41".

--Pipetricker (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sidetrack on punctuation style

I would note that all the nicknames in this paragraph have the punctuation outside of the quotations. Per American usage, they should be inside, e.g. "Bush 41,". Since I cannot edit, I mention it here. 2601:19B:8300:2F00:F87F:B699:71D1:5646 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We use "logical quotation" style per WP:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside. --Pipetricker (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I am an American and I was taught that punctuation goes within the quotes if it is part of the quoted material; if the punctuation is not part of the quote, the punctuation goes outside the quote. The only exception being elipses ... indicating part of the quoted material has been left out. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Further information: WP:Logical quotation on Wikipedia. --Pipetricker (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request: Sexual misconduct allegations section and Parkinson's

In the Sexual misconduct allegations section, please remove references to parkinson's and drug medication. Those two sentences are original research by people trying to white knight for Bush. The referenced citations are about parkinson's in general and not about the disease's specific impact on him as an individual.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Also please see discussion above.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done, per WP:SYNTH. --Pipetricker (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone PLEASE block Epiphyllumlover from editing this page!!! He continues to vandalize it.Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Posters5, Epiphyllumlover's edits are not vandalism. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed the stuff again, again per WP:SYNTH, but left the newly added mention of it being noted by the Washington Post writer (even though that wasn't the point of her blog post, and surely she wasn't the only commentator mentioning Bush's behaviour being connected by some to Parkinson/dementia?). --Pipetricker (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pipetricker, I understand your last edit as justifiable especially in terms of readability. However, in my defense the content of my edits fall under:WP:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_unpublishably_unoriginal

It occurred to me that there are distinctive Kantian vs. Hegelian forms of WP:SYNTH, both on Wikipedia and in real life. This is problematic because epistemological differences tend to be ingrained. Change happens slowly over years, if at all. Someone used to defining synthesis in terms of Kant's Analytic–synthetic distinction will not label things the same as someone using the Thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad. For the most part, this should not be a problem because math and hard science articles are going to be edited mostly by editors with the former distinction, while politics, pop-culture, history, and art will be dominated by editors with the latter distinction.

If you haven't figured it out already, I see myself as using the Analytic–synthetic distinction (in a practical sense), while Posters5 would be more along the lines of the triad. The solution to this problem would be to integrate C. West Churchman's inquiring systems approach to clarify when each definition of synthesis should apply. The different angles discussed on the WP:What_SYNTH_is_not page go down this path halfway already. But since it is only Wikipedia I doubt it is necessary to solve the problem.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal applies to this. The facts regarding Bush's behavior being or not being a consequence of his Parkinson's or dementia are not at all common knowledge anywhere.

Facts that are common knowledge in the Parkinson and dementia medical communities were here offered in support of the thought that it's likely that Bush's behavior was a consequence of his Parkinson or dementia, a synthesis that isn't claimed by any of the sources. --Pipetricker (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, a number of media made the Parkinson/medication defense at the time. Here's USA Today: "A medical condition might explain former President George H.W. Bush’s recent behavior, according to several doctors who are familiar with the condition but not with the President’s case or care."

On the flip side, the Texas Monthly reported 8 different gropings, beginning before Bush used a wheelchair.

But what I came to check on was whether there was any mention of Jennifer Fitzgerald. Jon Meacham's biography gives two and a half pages to rumors of an affair with her and with others. YoPienso (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that published writers mentioned parkinson's, but again: 1) there was no formal diagnosis or link between the disease and Bush groping women; 2) the earliest alleged instances took place when Bush was walking. I want to reiterate that it's nonsensical for Epiphyllumlover to speculate about medication because he has actually admitted that we don't even know if Bush was on meds for parkinson's!Posters5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Would something like this be better than the current mention of the Washington Post writer?:

At the time, media reported of doctors familiar with parkinsonism, but unfamiliar with Bush’s medical case, speculating that the vascular parkinsonism which Bush had been diagnosed with might explain his behavior.^[14]

--Pipetricker (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

In the George H. W. Bush#World War II section, a paragraph or two seems to have been copied, with minor changes, from http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100410115448/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq10-1.htm (from source [4])
One example - Text in article:

• Bush waited for four hours in an inflated raft, while several fighters circled protectively overhead, until he was rescued by the submarine USS Finback, on lifeguard duty

Text in source:

• While Bush anxiously waited four hours in his inflated raft, several fighters circled protectively overhead until he was rescued by the lifeguard submarine, USS Finback

There are a other sentences copied with minor changes. I think this should this be rewritten. 2606:6000:CB87:F400:ADF7:D24C:3DAF:6857 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I rewrote the above sentence a little more (the "lifeguard" bit was already removed):

• Bush spent four hours in an inflated raft, protected by fighter aircraft circling above, until the submarine USS Finback came to his rescue.

I haven't looked at the rest of the source, so don't know if more should be rewritten. --Pipetricker (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Addition to the honorary degrees section: 2000, Saint Anselm College, Honorary Doctor of Laws. Source:(https://www.anselm.edu/new-hampshire-institute-politics/blog/remembering-former-president-george-hw-bush "President Bush was no stranger to Saint Anselm College. On May 18, 2000, he delivered the College’s commencement address where he was presented an honorary doctor of laws degree.") 207.89.61.17 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done  DiscantX 08:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ranking by Historians

A sentence regarding Bush's general ranking among American presidents by historians should be included at the end of the introductory section, as there is in almost every other U.S. president article on Wikipedia.

26 years since his term ended, as of 2019, is sufficient time for such a general consensus to be established, on a historical time scale, even if he is perhaps the most recent president for whom this is true, as of this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.254.1.7 (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really. His successors until Donald Trump have already received rankings in the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. In the Siena Poll, 2018, Bush ranked as the 21st best President. He was trailing behind:

• George Washington (1st)
• Franklin D. Roosevelt (2nd)
• Abraham Lincoln (3rd)
• Theodore Roosevelt (4th)
• Thomas Jefferson (5th)
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (6th)
• James Madison (7th)
• James Monroe (8th)
• Harry S. Truman (9th)
• John F. Kennedy (10th)
• Woodrow Wilson (11th)
• James K. Polk (12th)
• Ronald Reagan (13th)
• John Adams (14th)
• Bill Clinton (15th)
• Lyndon B. Johnson (16th)
• Barack Obama (17th)
• John Quincy Adams (18th)
• Andrew Jackson (19th)
• William McKinley (20th) Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Agnew resignation

I'm not going to edit this page, but I think this article now needs updating regarding the revelations days before Bush died that refer to obstruction at the time of the resignation of Spiro Agnew. Roricka (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You have basically four sources regurgitating the same podcast. I wouldn't consider Slate or MSNBC unbiased here either. Calidum 05:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? How could any source be considered "biased" out of hand? Is it biased to say 1+1=2? If you look at the materials you'll see they are simply historical documents that have been recently discovered. There is no issue of bias here. And these are not a simple regurgitation of the same podcast. The original podcast is aural. It requires a transcript. There are documents available that would be inappropriate for the podcast. I'll admit that MSNBC wants page rank so they spread their links around. But the point here is that this is a genuine discovery, not some hack accusation. It's not the main story presented in the podcast, but a fair bit of evidence is now available, which is what the references were meant to make accessible. If it really bothers you I will reduce it all down to a single footnote. But let's get beyond that. I have a question. Is there an argument that a clear-cut case of obstruction WOULDN'T be appropriate for including in the article? Roricka (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I tried updating, and it was reverted as "not noteworthy." I would disagree. As to the sources, they include audio tapes from Nixon, so pretending that they're not reliable is pretty laughable. --Thalia42 (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Acting President

While he did do essentially nothing of note during his period as Acting President under Ronald Reagan from 11:28-19:22 on July 13, 1985, should it not be mentioned that he was Acting President at all, as he served for essentially a full working day and the first example of the usage of the 25th amendment in the infobox?--Justin J. Liu (Dylan Smithson) (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Serving as acting president is at most an asterisk on Bush’s resume, and as such is probably not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox. Including Acting-POTUS in the article’s infobox (and also in the Dick Cheney article Infobox) was proposed last October. It encountered opposition and was not implemented. (For information: Talk:George H. W. Bush/Archive 7#Acting President of the United States; Talk:Dick Cheney#Acting President of the United States). Drdpw (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fix alignment of photos?

Early in the article there's a photo of Bush as a small child. When I view the article, it is aligned within the top of his World War II service, rather than 'early life'. If I go so far as to go full-screen with my browser, the image is pushed even further down the page. It looks rather silly having a photo of him as a child show up in World War II service, but I'm not skilled enough in wiki markup to know how to get it in the right place. help? Anastrophe (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

Is George H. W. Bush the 41st president, or the 43rd president; because in the box on the right side of his wiki page it says he was both, unless I misunderstand it. 99.21.149.100 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The info box says he was 41st President and he also served as the 43rd Vice-President. RudolfRed (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

43rd VP?

How did he serve as the 41st President of the United States and the 43rd Vice President of the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.184.87.10 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Because he was the 43rd person to serve as vice president of the United States (1981–89) and then was the 41st person to serve as president of the United States (1989–93). Drdpw (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nixon-Bush phone call about Republican Party chair

I just added a link to the phone call where Nixon discusses how Bush will become GOP chair and get Dole out. I don't know exactly how it should be integrated into the article, but it is definitely a really special resource that should be fully threshed out. [15] Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Misnomer

"He was then elected vice president in 1980 and 1984 as Reagan's running mate." It should say "selected". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.208.159 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

Please add the template Template:Ford cabinet to the templates at the bottom. 2601:241:301:4360:C055:4653:2F29:1C72 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2020

Grammar issue for "Second term" In 1986, the Reagan administration was shaken by a scandal when it was revealed that administration officials had secretly arranged weapon sales to Iran during the Iran–Iraq War. The officials had used the proceeds to fund the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, which was a direct violation of law.[94] When news of affair broke to the media, Bush, like Reagan, stated that he had been "out of the loop" and unaware of the diversion of funds, although this has assertion has since been challenged

Remove "has" in the statement. Betteruser (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Post-nominal title

President Bush is an honorary member of the Order of the Bath and received Knight Grand Cross (GCB). The post nominal of GCB should follow his name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Bath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_honorary_British_knights_and_dames

Msromike (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The photo at the top of the infobox is perfectly fine as it is his official presidential (not vice presidential), and therefore there are no good reasons to remove it. The crop is also appropriate to be used in an infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd Bensten

If you go to Bush's Senate race against Bensten of 1970, it should say Bensten was more right of Yarbrough rather than centrist. ChesnutTreesNearTheGreen (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"H. W." listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect H. W.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19#H. W. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 19:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

he was the 40th president 108.222.85.151 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Historians generally rank Bush as an above-average president"

This was at the end of the summary/introduction, I was just confused because I don't understand what "above-average" means. What does it refer to? Is there a chart, evidence, or any further explanation? Thanks! 47.229.131.175 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The article United States presidential approval rating might be a good start. Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a general introductory statement. See the "Historical reputation" paragraph in the "Legacy" section for further explanation and details. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Overcategorized"?

Disagree with this edit [16]. I would argue Category:American people of the Gulf War and Category:People of the Cold War are pretty defining for Bush. Yes, the page has a lot of categories, but he was an accomplished figure with a long tenure in politics. That will happen. WP:OVERCAT mostly lists what kind of categories should be deleted, not that individual pages need to exclude valid categories because they themselves are overcategorized. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2021

CHANGE At Bush's insistence, in November 1990, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq did not withdrawal from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. TO At Bush's insistence, in November 1990, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. BoboOOZ (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 13:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

In 1966, Bush moved his family to a mid-century-modern townhouse built by Houston architect H.H. Brown located at 5000 Longmont Drive #8, and ran for the United States House of Representatives in Texas's 7th congressional district, a newly redistricted seat in the Greater Houston area. 2600:1700:70C0:1620:F48B:6A14:ACAE:BED5 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done – There's no need to add these tangential details. the article currently states the important details: 'In 1966, Bush ran for the United States House of Representatives in Texas's 7th congressional district, a newly redistricted seat in the Greater Houston area.' Drdpw (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

With regard to the discussion of foreign policy and the Iraq war, it is extremely remiss to merely cite one detractor and one supporter and not mention the egregious, very publicly documented, foreign policy failure that almost certainly led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Please see: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/23/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-us-gave-iraq-little-reason-not-to-mount-kuwait-assault.html among other reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.35.121 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article include the Savings and Loan crisis

While the economic recession was international, but the Crash in the US was based on a lack of confidence. Bush is responsible for that lack of confidence. In addition this article fails to put responsibility for the savings and loan crisis firmly on Bush. Read how Wikipedia talks about Carter and the inflation from the early '70s and how differently this piece on Bush applies the same accountability. This recession was far worse that the economic events of the '70s. This 1990's event destroyed people's lives. Plants closed in mass, people all across the country lost their jobs and homes. All while Republicans were still bragging about their tax cut. See Season 4 and 5 of the Rosanne TV show to know how this impacted Americans. Why is Wikipedia lieing to people about this 41st President? 69.54.142.165 (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What specifically do you propose adding about Bush's responsibility for inspiring lack of confidence during the early 1990s recession? What specifically do you propose adding about Bush's responsibility for the savings and loan crisis? Drdpw (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Our article on the savings and loan crisis (1986-1995) does not blame Bush for the crisis. :

• • The regulatory oversight of the savings and loan associations was problematic for years: "Rather than admit to insolvency, some S&Ls took advantage of lax regulatory oversight to pursue highly speculative investment strategies. This had the effect of extending the period where S&Ls were likely technically insolvent. "
  • The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation held reserves in case of failures, but was underfunded. "In 1983, the FSLIC's reserves for failures amounted to around $6 billion, whereas, according to Robinson (footnoted), the cost of paying off insured depositors in failed institutions would have been around $25 billion."
  • The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980) and the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (1982) deregulated the savings and loans industry, in hope that associations which were already losing money could overcome their problems. The associations responded by increasing their assets, while "investing in high-yield, risky investments and loans."
  • In an effort to combat inflation, the Federal Reserve kept increasing short-term interest rates, starting in 1979. The effect on the savings and loans industry was that "increases in the short-term cost of funding were higher than the return on portfolios of mortgage loans". Guess what happens when you spend more money than the amount you earn through your economic activities. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations

Haven't visited this page in a long time, and to my surprise, saw that the info about the sexual misconduct allegations was removed. How come?Posters5 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So, I looked at the the edit history, and it looks like the section was stealthily removed despite extensive discussion of it on the Talk page back when the allegations surfaced. Come on, if you're a fan of the guy, just be honest and admit it. Even better, face the reality that even human heroes are still human. Posters5 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, to anyone who doubts Bush's accusers, please read the news articles from the time. Even Bush's wife Barbara and his Secret Service detail knew about his behavior. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/25/george-h-w-bush-apologizes-for-attempt-at-humor-after-actress-accused-him-of-groping/ Posters5 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I found out what happened. I guess user The One I Left thought he was white knighting for the Bush family. He added some text about Barbara Bush's death/funeral and blanked the sexual misconduct allegations, which hid his content blanking. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_H._W._Bush&type=revision&diff=955610226&oldid=955608712 Posters5 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Why haven’t these allegations been re-added to the section in question? This user slyly got away with removing legit info for obvious political and legacy reasons? Unacceptable. ---StevenBjerke97 talk 03:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations slyly removed

I’m curious how this user (The One I Left), seems to have somehow gotten away with, dare I say slyly, removing, very well sourced allegations of sexual misconduct, that were otherwise agreed upon in previous discussions on this talk page?

This is obviously people close to the Bush family or just being biased, read all the previous discussions on the talk page, the consensus was to retain it. Somehow it was removed yet again.

Before I add this very well sourced info back, any commentary? (see the above discussion as well, but nothing was done) ---StevenBjerke97 talk 09:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See the section above from August 2021, where the links are shown explaining this further, something smells off... ---StevenBjerke97 talk 09:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Slyly removed? You make it seem dubious and malevelant. I removed with with explicit edit summary, I thought having it on his main page was an example of undue weight since it is already in his post presidency article and since it's already on his post presidency page I removed redundant information. To make things clear since you seem worried, "removing legit info for obvious political and legacy reason". Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no connection whatsoever to the Bush family, and I am absolutely not denying the accusations, I believe them, they are well documented in the press. I do however want to make the case that this is a more nuanced case than others in the MeToo movement. I think labelling it as such is lazy and does a disservice. The One I Left (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

More nuanced how? Does a disservice to whom or what? 24.104.226.80 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It seemed suspicious when I went through the page history, albeit rushed, after the info was removed. I apologize, I exaggerated. There are political pages that are regularly manipulated for reasons of legacy. I understand your point though.

As a middle ground it should be mentioned on the page in question. If it isn’t already. -StevenBjerke97 talk 03:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with Noriega as CIA director

@Drdpw: In regards to this edit – the meeting wasn't too significant, what I think is important is that Bush as DCI knew and supported Noriega. How about Noriega was also a paid asset of the CIA during the 1970s, including during Bush's tenure as Director of Central Intelligence? More details at Manuel Noriega#Relationship with the U.S.. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Revised text added. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A better sentence for demonstrating that Bush knew and supported Noriega during the 1980s would be this from the Noriega article: Bush, now U.S. vice president, met again with Noriega in December 1983 to discuss support for the Contras. Drdpw (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drdpw: But he was DCI in 1976, not during the 1980s. Could you explain more specifically what you dislike about the text I added, so I can revise it to address your concerns? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I was having problems with the phrasing, and have added revised text. Drdpw (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok cool, thank you for your help. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox length

The Biden infobox RfC and its closing comment (which mentions "other politicians") seem to me to be applicable to this case. I do not see anything there that suggests that the consensus favors excluding senate-specific assignments because they are senate-specific. Rather, the closing comment refers to "the names of successors and predecessors, and dates of service, especially in the minor offices" and notes that Biden "has an unusually long political career and large number of chairperson stints" and that "some other politicians also have long infoboxes which could benefit from shortening".

The infobox in this article is likewise bloated with the names of successors and predecessors and dates of service in offices that are minor compared to presidency and vice-presidency. John Dowdy, Bill Archer, Charles Yost, John A. Scali, Mary Smith, David K. E. Bruce, Thomas S. Gates Jr., Vernon A. Walters, E. Henry Knoche, William Colby, and Stansfield Turner are all names that do not appear anywhere in the text. Not even once. The associated dates do not either. The argument that prevailed in the Biden infobox RfC is that the inclusion of such information contravenes MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since infoboxes are supposed to "summarize key facts that appear in the article". These names are not key facts; they do not appear in the article. Such information is meant for the succession boxes at the bottom. Do we really need a new RfC for the same purpose just a year later? Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why have the previous offices held before the vice presidency been eliminated? RNC chairman, CIA Director, UN Ambassador, Envoy to China, and US Representative certainly seem noteworthy. 2601:140:8E00:2050:0:0:0:6A79 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

See the preceding comment. In short, it's because Bush is far better known as vice president and president, and a discussion at the Biden infobox RfC resulted in the consensus that offices that are minor in comparison to the presidency need not be included in the infobox in the articles about presidents. I am beginning to wonder if a new RfC is needed for Bush specifically. Surtsicna (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do so. Consensus reached regarding one politician's infobox does not establish a consensus for all politicians' infoboxes; neither does it establish a standard for what constitutes a "minor office." That should have been evident when your removal of offices from the infobox was reverted. Drdpw (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments for keeping the names that do not appear anywhere in the text? Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It is my opinion that his other offices should be restored to the infobox. They were important positions he held and should also be included in the text.JOJ ^Hutton 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment It is my opinion they should not be restored. Too much info defeats the purpose of the infobox. An infobox is not a resume. Whatever his other positions, he is known for the presidency. Kleuske (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Jojhutton: Do you really want to have the same discussion for every president? That's feels like obstruction. The arguments that were valid on Joe Bidens infobox are equally valid here. His varied array of positions are already mentioned in the article, why clog up the infobox with unneccesary bloat, forcing the reader to scroll for half a mile to get to the relevant bits and make it a disinfobox? Kleuske (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Given that what you are attempting to remove here is very different than what was removed at Joe Biden, then yes. A consensus at a single article is not a binding consensus at other articles.JOJ ^Hutton 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous pronoun

Ambiguous pronoun:

Bush also generally enjoyed a good relationship with Reagan staffers, including his close friend Jim Baker, who served as Reagan's initial chief of staff

79.176.173.15 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What? It is clearly referring to Bush, there's no other possibility. ValarianB (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Except Reagan -- Charlesreid1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

While I agree it obviously means Bush, one could misinterpret to be Reagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Jay Fox (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention, which Jim (James) Baker are we talking about?? The James Baker (disambiguation) page lists 3 lawyers, 14 public officials, and 12 'other people'. While only some of them could have been alive and adults during either Bush's or Reagan's lifetime, this Jim Baker should be a wikilink. That would make it easier to follow up to see whether Baker was a friend of Reagan's, Bush's, or both.

On further follow up it's James Baker who "Jim Baker" refers to. I updated the name to be a wikilink, and updated the ambiguous pronoun from "his friend" to "Bush's friend" as per James Baker article.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history

Why does B1 fail? Adamdaley (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)