Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Please add the Rolling stone reference since Time is featured

From the article it is a biased perspective protecting the integrity of the president instead of providing accurate information. This can be seen in the article where it says george bush was on the cover of time magazine twice but completely ignore the fact he was on the cover of rolling stone. It further states that time rated him man of the year while leaving out that in rolling stone on the cover it states is he worst the president.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigpoppa (talk • contribs) 04:06, May 17, 2007

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that canned response, but this is a protected article. It cannot be edited. 70.181.161.24 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Mild disagree. Roling Stone is a music Magazine, while Time is more of a general-purpose. Riffraffselbow 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone special feature article was written by Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University endowed professor of American history. Those credentials are not something to dismiss so lightly. Silly rabbit 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone can not be accepted as a credited news source since it endorses deviant behaviors, drug usage and the criminality so common to the Rock jondrah. Also one could point out that Harry Truman, John Kennedy, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton easily qualify as abysmal presidents because of foreign policies that led America into disaster or greatly endangered future world events after they left office.

Nonsense. Have you guys read Rolling Stone? Most of their features have nothing to do with music, and as silly rabbit mentioned, the author is certainly a reputable source. What proof do you have that Rolling Stone "endorses deviant behaviors, drug usage and the criminality so common to the Rock jondrah?" And you'd have to explain why the last five Democratic Presidents were so "abysmal." Faithlessthewonderboy 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Time Magazine, Rolling Stone does not even try to mask its obvious bias in its political "coverage" and commentary. RS staffers are relentless anti-GOP hacks, and their eagerness to run yet another hit piece against Bush is no surprise. RS is not in any way considerable as an encyclopedic source. 70.181.161.24 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be right about RS being biased. But that doesn't mean this article can't be a reliable source. WP:RS says that reliable sources are "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Surely Sean Wilentz is a reliable source when it comes to an article concerning the US President. WP:RS also says "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Biased or not, this certainly describes RS. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think an over-the-top commentary by yet another Bush-hating academic can be cited as a helpful encyclopedic resource, no matter how "reliable" the publication that runs it. 70.181.161.24 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of 2000 Election

I think that the phrase "upholding Florida law" should be included in the sentence about the Supreme Court decision in the 2000 election. Some seem to think it is unnecessary. I feel that it clarifies what happened, since the Supreme Court did not actually decide the election. It simply upheld Florida law, which mandates how the Electoral Votes for Florida are to be selected. I would like some feedback. Thank you. Sdth 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not start this here. It overturned what the Florida Supreme Court ruled. Tvoz |talk 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to prove that it did have that effect with citations to published primary sources - in this case law journal articles would be the minimum acceptable source. --BenBurch 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on the court case should really be where legal theories are presented. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. Ben, there is no law journal article that would constitute proof that the Florida Supreme Court misstated Florida law. I mention this only so that your comment isn't misinterpreted by the right-wingers as a license to rewrite history. JamesMLane t c 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get raked over the coals if I refer to the wrong intentions of others, but JamesMLane can get by with badmouthing "rightwingers"?? I'm confused....

As for the Supreme Court, yes it overruled the Florida Supreme Court by UPHOLDING Florida law. Florida law says the votes must be certified by a certain date. The Supreme Court simply upheld that law, and said that the legislature, NOT THE COURT, had the right to mandate the manner in which the Electoral College votes are cast. However, I'm not trying to get into a debate about Florida. I simply wanted to insert three words to clarify what the ruling was: "upholding Florida law". If references are all you need, I will endeavor to find those references. However, I find it rather odd that any of you would question this, because any informed student of history knows this fact. Sdth 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Scholar Mark Levine for one clearly disagrees with this assessment, so you need to provide some cites saying this is what the effect was. Note also that if there is significant opposing opinion (and there is) that also becomes part of this and the three words expand into a brief discussion of the effect of Bush v. Gore that will not quite have the effect you intend. So, this is best left out of the article. --BenBurch 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to this information from Mark Levine? Do you mean Mark Levin? I'd be interested to read what he has to say. Sdth 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Official White House Portrait?

Is there an official White House painting of George Bush? On the list of Presidents of the United States page, he is the only one represented with a photograph rather than a portrait. -MosheA 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The paintings happen later. Clinton's painting was unveiled while Bush was in office. KeithCu 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Foreign perceptions

As a member of the Global Perspective Task Force, I'm hoping to expand the foreign perceptions section of this article to include more Arab opinons (which are currently lacking). Any thoughts/advice?Benzocane 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Yes wiki should include how the world sees Dubya. Xavier cougat 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Now should not his failings as a president be mentioned in the first paragraph? why go into history. a couple of paragraphs on what kind of president he is. Xavier cougat 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction - George Bush did not win the election

The statement in the third paragraph that Bush won the 2000 election is false. He lost the election and was given the presidency by the Supreme Court which stopped the recount, which has later proven that Bush lost the election. There were also so many irregularities in the 2004 election that it is highly unlikely that he won that election either. Gonezales 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but under the election system in the United States, Bush did win the election. Bush won the electoral college, which is how presidents are elected. The controversy surrounding the election doesn't change that. Also note Bush is not the first candidate to win the election without gaining the plurality. - auburnpilot talk 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? Bush lost Florida in 2000, and thus also the electoral college. The Supreme Court stopped the recount before that fact was learned. Gonezales 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Bush won the popular vote in Florida, he won the electoral votes and thus claimed both Florida and the national election. I'm afraid you may be the one not getting it. We work in fact, not theory of what could have happened if something else didn't. - auburnpilot talk 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that gets into a funny area; US federal election law actually only requires that each state provide electors to the electoral college, and says nothing regarding the requirements of how they are chosen. Thus the threat by Brother Jeb's administration to just send a slate of proBush electors if the conflict continued. But Florida law states that the "will of the people" be assessed as accurately as possible to determine said electors, which can run into some obvious conflicts with other laws regarding deadlines etc., depending on which law you think takes precedence over the other. Thus, one valid position is to argue that Bush's election was valid by federal law, but not by Florida law. Gzuckier 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Charleton Heston is MY president. :) - Crockspot 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the USA hasn't had a good president in 30+ years, so in my opinion, they've all lost :) — Deckiller 16:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on...what about Harrison Ford. He was president, right? - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dohn't forget Martin Sheen, he was President, AND fought in Vietnam. Crockspot 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you are an Anglophone but that shouldn't hinder you from being able to read the CONSTITUTION which is written in English. It is funny that with English being my second Language I can understand well enough to know that George Bush did in fact win the election regardless of how I or anyone else may feel about that. This is exactly the kind of crazy comments that are continuelly made that prevent real and legitimate criticism of the President from being given the proper credit.--Billiot 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Billiot, the question is: Is being elected President the same as winning the election? I think the terms are similar, but do not mean precisely the same thing, so the distinction can be drawn. As an aside, I reviewed the Constitution and can find no language supporting a role for the Supreme Court in adjudicating Presidential elections. Is it implied by some other power of the Court, or did I simply miss it? --Ssbohio 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you need me to explain it to you. I will but you might just want to R-E-A-D the constitution instead of just reviewing it. The answer is right there. Again, I will explain it if you want me to. --Billiot 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, reviewing a document involves reading it. And, assuming good faith in my question, you'd see it as my request for the information you've proffered. Thanks. --Ssbohio 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well one of the definitions of the word elected is sort of like promoted, so he was elected in the sense that he was promoted to the presidency. You still don't get it that he lost the vote in the state of Florida, by reason of not getting as many votes in the state of Florida as Gore. Had Florida's electoral votes been correctly given to Gore, Gore would be the president today, in all likelihood. What the Supreme court did was stop any further recount, and the votes counted so far led to Bush being incorrectly given the electoral votes from Florida, and hence the presidency. Gonezales 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gonzales, I'm a card-carrying leftist/liberal whatever and even I think your argument is without merit. Whatever the Supreme Court did or did not do or should have done is irrelevant; the final outcome of the matter was that Bush was awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes. Tarc 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will explain. First, dispite the name, the electoral college was not meant to elect the president. The electoral college was meant to nominate people to congress so that congress (specifically the house of representatives) could elect the president. This was America's attempt to immitate the British system of the time but take into account the different states. The election by congress was not meant to be a second chance system when the original broke down, it was meant to be The System. This is why there is no where in the constitution a section to talk about the popular vote. Members of the college are selected by the state legislatures in a manner that the legislature sees fit. Since the president must negotiate treaties on the states' behalves the states must have a say in his selection. Since he is also the head legislator of the Congress then congress will have the final say one who gets selected. However, it was thought to be unfair if some great man like George Washington gets 90 percent of the votes but looses to a guy that got only 1 percent due to political back stabbing. This clause was originally meant to mean that should all the states choose a particualr person, say because he wants to increase the power of the states, then congress could not refuse him simply because they feared loosing power. This loop hole in the selection process allowed the creation of the two party system. If there are only two choices then one will have to have a majority of the nominations over the other and thus force the hand of congress everytime. In this way, political parties are getting around the spirit of the constitution and rigging the election every 4 years. That is why we only have two choices. Now it is true that America is far more democratic today then at the time of the founding and people make arguements about the electoral college versus the direct vote. Changing it requires a constitutional amendment. Currenlty it is only by state choice that popular votes are used to decide who goes to the electoral college. All of the states could if they wanted to, stop this practice tomorrow and no one could stop them. The 2000 election we see the same rigging of the election between the Democrat party and the Republican party. What we also see is when the count happened that it was close. Close enough to say "well a small error could change the outcome so let us make sure that there is no error." And thus they did a recount. The recount was the same result, Bush won. But, for the Democrats, they needed to believe that Bush lost so that their guy could win and they were close so they figured, if we recount in heavly Democrat areas then it might turn the tide. So they did another recount. Bush still won. They claimed irregularities and wanted to do a fourth recount. Then all the stuff about the Chads, hanging, pregnant and all what not was theorized and put into practice in an attempt to make Bush loose the election. There were incnsistant standards being implimented in the deturmining of who voted for who and then the law suits started. There were questions of federal law at issue and questions of state law at issue. Before the first law suit was ever filed Bush had already been seen to be the winner of the election three times. Neither party was assuming the other in good faith and everyone was trying to get a leg up. Because this was a question of a Federal election, then any decision from a state court would be moved to federal court. There is also the Equal Protection Clause that made it a direct federal issue from the start. Now, no one liked that the courts were getting involved. Everyone agrees that that is not the right way to get the conclusion of an election. However, we need to be clear about the basic facts. Bush had already won the election, first count, recount and second recount. All the supreme court at the time did was prevent the conclusiion of a Fourth recount that Bush would have won anyway. The court saw an extreme Equal Protection violation in the actions of the proponants for the recount and the court simply prevented them from possibly illigally taking the election away from the person already declared the winner.

- Now I know I lost you somewhere in there. You might be saying to yourself that I don't know what I am talking about. You might have a bunch of really bad things to say about me that you are formulating right now. But that doesn't matter. The election ballots are Public Record. Please, by all means, go and count. Count to your hearts content. They are all there waiting to be counted. Please go and be among the houndreds of political action groups and international newpapers that have recounted the ballots time and again. All with the same result. Bush won. It was close, and not a landslide but he still won. It doesn't matter what you or I think about him. He won. If we don't like it we can call for a constitutinal amendment. Maybe that is a good idea, amend the constitutiion because we don't like the outcome of one election. Somehow I hear 1860 in my head from somewhere. - Anyway, I digress. Please refrain from bringing up this old, dead topic. The supreme court did not hand the presidency to President Bush and neither did he win the popular vote. Due to election rigging of the two party system he slid in on the nominations and bypassed congress which would have selected him anyway. That is all there is to it. --Billiot 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all can agree that Dubya was not elected in a clear, clean manner. Gore got most of the votes in the US. Most Americans wanted him. To me the Supreme Court should have taken that into consideration. It is a bad system. Most people do not want Dubya now but we have to put up with him till his term is up. He barley squeaked by in 2004. It has been a tragedy. And we cannot even say anything bad about him in Wiki. It is a great tragedy. Xavier cougat 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You think wrong. I don't agree at all. This discussion should be moved to a blog. It has nothing to do with editing this article. - Crockspot 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you respond to it if you think it is a blog? It should be mentioned in the article that the win was not clean. And do not respond if you think this is blogging. Xavier cougat 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded because you made an assertion that "we can all agree". We clearly do not agree. You have a POV, which is fine for a blog, but not for Wikipedia. This entire section is veering into blogish discussion, that is fair for me to point out. I'll reply wherever and whenever I see fit. Or not. - Crockspot 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that 'most Americans' didn't want him. We don't know that. Most Americans didn't vote and as I have already pointed out, it was supposed to be the congress's selection anyway. By now the entire thing is moot. I ask that people please stop suggesting that the statement in the article that says he WON the election be taken out. He won. If you don't believe me go count the ballot. They are still being stored in Florida. The supreme court is not allowed to take in the will of the people (though it might be nice if they did because then Abortion would still be banned) they are only allowed to consider valid legal questions. You would be asking the court to do what you accuse the court of doing in the first place that you think is so bad because it accknowedged President Bush as the winner of an eleciton. At least there is some sort of election. And, why do you come to Wiki just to say bad things about him. I have legitimate conserns that I want to get into the article but they are being blocked because people think that I am like all of you who think he is satan incarnate bacuase he doesn't have a (D) next to his name, oh and he owns a dog and combs his hair on the wrong side and was able to cause the 2001 economic recession before he was even sworn into office. --Billiot 19:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK most of the 'voters' did not want him. and people do not want him now. What are your legitimate concerns? He comes his hair on the wrong side? which is the correct side? The article seems like a white wash to me. not enough critism. Most people think he is a bad president. Xavier cougat 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable sources to back up these sweeping assumptions? - Crockspot 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are these most people you speak of? My point is that by people always saying random, nonsense, crazy stuff about him like he is satan because he spit on the white house lawn and uses non standard southern grammar in his speach pattern it then becomes impossible for a real concern just as his recent promotion of an English Only Law that is clearly racist from my point of view from being considered valid and credible. --Billiot 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? He lost the popular vote in 2000 which means most voters did not want him. And according to polls most people think he is doing a bad job. If there was an election now he would be out the door in a millisecond. yahoo 'failure' and who comes up. do you read the papers at all? English only racist? Thats the one thing I thing he has the right idea. Who said he was 'satan'? He just a bad president. Actually seems like a nice guy to have fun with. He is very funny and comfortable and down to earth. Just not a good prez. Xavier cougat 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet you seem to gloss over the fact that he did win the majority in 2004...by your assertions that means the majority did want him. The fact remains the same; GWB was elected by the electoral college as all preceding presidents have been. There really is nothing more to it at this point. - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

English Only Laws are in fact racist, or at least elietist. They decriminate against Louisiana and her needs. Louisiana is a Froncophone, Civil law state and it is not right of the rest of America to ask us to change or coerce us using the abuse of the 16th amendment. It is also not right for the U.S. to allow only Anglophones into America and deney Francophones from Haiti or Africa or dare I say, France from immigrating to Louisiana. Maybe you don't agree that it is racist but can you at least see why les Louisiannes have a problem with it?--Billiot 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Louisiana is not a 'race' There is nothing in the Consititution that says we have to let *anyone* in the country. It protects the citizens not foreigners.

• Bush won. STOP! The Electoral College decides the winner of an election when it comes to the President. The Supreme Court awarded Bush Florida's vote. The popular vote just influences the electoral college. Bush won from the electoral votes. Sorry but this is how it works. Mrld 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Bush lost. Stop! The votes were cast, and not counted until years later, when the true results were learned. No one is questioning how the popular vote works or how the electoral votes work. The fact is that no one knew until all the votes were re-counted what the true result of the election was, and that result is that Bush lost, and was given the presidency by the supreme court which stopped the recount. See the image to the right here.

  

  The wording in the article is false and needs to be clarified. A correct statement would be "Despite losing the 2000 election, Bush was awarded the presidency due to vote counting inadequacies." Gonezales 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

NOTICE: Unless you are here to discuss changes to the article, go elsewhere. Please stop treating this page like a forum for political discussion. This is not how the page is to be used. - auburnpilot talk 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The graph shown above is not correct and it is of a doubious source. The current atricle that states that he won the 2000 election is acurate. If you don't believe that your time would be better spent not creating false graphs and going to count the ballots that are still public record. As to my knowledge, they have been recounted by a number of international groups, American political groups and Newspapers; all with the same result no matter how much they didn't like the result. George Bush won that election. It really has become silly for some people to keep bringing it up. As to the other comment about Louisiana, The federal government is supposed to look out for the well being of the states and not try to annialate a group of people who are American Citizens from birth and have lived in Louisiana from the time before "America" as in the "United States" even came into existance. I am personally shocked that you can't understand that. We see more and more Anglophone incursion into Louisiana so that now her native Francophone population is seen as foriengers. If the Federal Government really does want to promote English Only and only allow English speaking immigrants into the country them maybe it is best for Louisiana to get out so we can decide our own Immigration policy. It is astounding you that you can't see the inheirent injustice in this. --Billiot 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is my last arguement that I hope will put the entire issue of the 2000 election to rest. After this arguement no one except the completely self dilutioned will rightly be able to say the President Bush lost the election. Ok, ready, everyone got a copy of the constitution? The first think you should to is read the section I posted above then come back. Now, people are always talking about the electoral votes but forget about the electors that actually do the voting. The constitution is very specific about when the Electors, who are real physical people that actually have to get together and sit down and cast real physical votes, should vote but is very vague on the selection of the electors by the legislature. All the states have decided to adopt an election of the electors but we must remember that the electors are still federal officials and all the aspects of their job fall under the federal constitution. So, please find the place in the constitution where it list the term limits and tenure of office for an elector. Oh wait, sorry, it's not there. Hmm, I wonder why. Now, everyone has been assuming since the very founding of the federal constitution that once the electors cast their votes that they loose their office but this is not the case legally and constititionally speaking. They actually retain their office until they are replaced by the legislature. It is not the election, selection or what not of the electors that is at issue in being uniform per the constitution through out the country on a single day but of the electors actually voting. Should the legislature fail for whatever reason to choose new electors just before a presidential election that really doesn't cause a problem, all they have done is not replaced the current set of electors who then legally could go and vote. Now, I don't remember who Florida voted for in the election prior to 2000 but whoever they were could then go and vote with the full ability to take into consideration the will of the people, the best interest of the people (which may or may not be the same as the will of the people) or (and most likely) the selfish interest of their own party. Because this was a legal possibility, by preventing the replacement of the former electors with new ones the former electors could have come to vote regardless of the out come of the election. This created a little known Due Process and Equal Protection violation on the part of the recounters. Federal law doesn't care about ballots or chads or whatever, but it does care about the electors of all states voting on the same day per the constitution. By trying to continue a useless recount thus prevent the selection of new electors to replace the old ones it would have forced the state of Florida to call the old electors to the capital and have them vote. In the interim they could be bribed, threatened with violence or had all sorts of crazy appeals from all sides coming at them. Thus we see a situation where the laws are going to be broken. President Bush had already been declared the winner but the Democrats wanted to delay the seating of new electors and allow the old ones to vote again. That was what the recounts were really all about. Gore was never going to get the votes he needed to win. Everyone involved already knew that. The best they could hope for is to have the old electors, who I suspect voted for Clinton but I am not sure, come and try to convince them to vote for Gore based on the "I won the popular vote across the whole country" arguement. If you don't like Bush that is fine, I really don't care and I have my own bones to pick as I am sure everyone from New Orleans does with both parties but it is acurate that he won the 2000 election, selection, or what ever you want to call it. He stands on the most solid of legal grounds there is if you will just READ the constitution and take the words to mean what they SAY and not whatever you want them to mean. Honestly, I never knew so many people in America of all places knew NEWSPEAK or had read and loved 1984.--Billiot 10:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the source of your graph that you are using to try to change the article was created by a 22 year old college student who is studying auto racing from what I can tell. There is no information posted about where he got the graph, which I think was made up, and he displays no background or knowledge on political science or law, federal or state. --Billiot 10:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Just one more think for everyone to think about in regards to the issue that I would like to see mentioned in the article, I am pretty sure the first amendment is still in force. I know that the federal government has been violating the clause about religion with the so called "national house of Prayer" but Free Speach is still active isn't? Why is it that the government can not tell you what you can and can't say, how you can or can't spend your money in regards to giving it to politicians but can tell you what language you can and can't learn and in what language you can and can't speak. I seems to me to be an extreme case of violation of the 1st amendment. Let us be clear, the constitution doesn't say that the government must protect feedom of speach but only for citizens. It says that the congres shall make no law that hinders freedom of speach for anyone in the world. Period. This makes it bad enough that they want to force English onto immigrants but it is made worse by the fact that they are also doing it to people in Lousiana who Are Already American Citizens.--Billiot 10:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• All of you. Bush won! He's President. He might have stolen the election and he might have not. We will put in the third paragraph: Bush came to power through the highly contested Elction of 2000. That s a compromise. All you people calling Bush a tyrant and a cheater need to stop making potical statemnts and read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Or else leave Wikipedia and join a political forum. Bush is in power like it or not. He's president. It's history. Debate historians over this issue because he's in power. The elctoral college's votes were cast and Bush won then. Mrld 12:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. The only objection I had was to the word "won". Gonezales 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Fine if Auburnpilot wants something a little different how about this: Bush was elected in the highly disputed Election of 2000. It has won in it and it was also highly disputed. Is everybody happy now? Mrld 18:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok, what does work for you? It already says he was elected president in the first paragraph, what the third paragraph is about is the controversy around the election and a few things he did once he became president. Since the paragraph is about the controversy, don't say won, don't say elected, just say:

As the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest, while Bush lost the nationwide popular vote, the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore stopped the recount process in Florida, giving Bush a 537-vote margin in that state, and thus a majority of electoral votes, which allowed him to become president.< ref>Years later a full recount indicated that he actually would have lost the election to Al Gore by less than 200 votes. A full recount had not been requested at the time.< /ref>

Gonezales 13:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why was the criticism section deleted

There was no libel there. First he is a public figure. Second it was all source. This is not a place to promote one's political party. Xavier cougat 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch who you're calling partisan, I'm a card carrying libertarian—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could explain why you think it should be deleted. The section is properly sourced, complies in every way with WP:BLP, and is in no way libelous. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah what? BLP doesn't (yet) say that everything in an article about a living person must be glowing praise, sourced criticism is very encyclopedic if given appropriate weight. --W.marsh 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Xavier cougat is making a political statment. A section on Bush's criticisms need to be presented in a neutral way. Follow Wikipedia's Guidelines Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not. A section on why people don't like Bush may be needed but not with mudslinging and making this article partisan. Mrld 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the article says nothing but good things about a prez it is partisan. The bad side of Bush should be presented also. Xavier cougat 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss the entire, multi-paragraph section titled Criticism and public perception? Please also see the article devoted to the topic, Criticism of George W. Bush. If we crammed anymore criticism into this article, we'd have to change its title to George W. Bush and why people hate him. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Was that just put in? I didnt see it yesterday. Xavier cougat 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been there for a long, long time, but there was an edit war ongoing at the time [1] & [2] although the situation was quickly resolved [3] [4] Nil Einne 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Visit to England

He visited England recently, I think it was two years ago, I can't remember. Why isn't it here? Theres a paragraph on the Queens' section (elizabeth II) when she visited the President in 2007 so why not mention his visit to England? Or is it here, I can't find it.Tourskin 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The President of the US spends a good deal of his time travveling, visiting foreign dignitaries and such. If I'm not mistaken, from 1957 to the present she has visited the US five times, or about once every decade. As Bush visits Europe much more frequently, his travels are not as notable as the Queen's. Though this is just my opinion. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick comparison

Having just read openly a "kind" wikipedia article about Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, I was surprised to notice the amount of controversy mentioned in this article about the President of the United States. It is my intimate understanding that many of Hugo Chaves' reforms and efforts are equally if not more controversial with many critics. The critics' opinions aren't emphasized in the article about him. My question is why the critics' of President George W. Bush have a louder voice than those of Hugo Chavez, if the two articles are compared. 71.209.139.219 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Normal white kid

Appearantly you missed sentences in the lead such as, "Venezuelans are split between those who argue he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who allege he is an autocrat who has mismanaged the economy," the whole criticism section on Chavez's page, or the entire article entitled Criticism of Hugo Chávez. If you still think there is a problem though, I encourage you to start editing the respective pages.--Mbc³⁶² 13:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why discuss Hugo Chavez on the George W Bush talk page? And think about it: this is the English language Wikipedia, edited mostly by Americans. Doesn't it stand to reason that there would be more going on with the article of the President of the US than a dictator in South America who most Americans have probably never heard of? You may have a valid point, but it's just common sense that this article would have more controversy surrounding it than the article for Chavez, not only because of the language of the encyclopedia but ecause Bush is a larger figure on the world stage than is Chavez, so Bush's article would attract more people, both supporters and detractors. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Text for search results

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I noticed that this article (like others I've noticed recently as well) has some sort of meta-tag description that yields text in the google search result that says something like "Open-source encyclopedia article provides personal, business and political information about the President, his policies, and public perceptions and ..." as opposed to just the opening text of the article. Does anyone know how this text can be added to articles, and what formatting we should put it under? If you could reply on my talk page (in addition to here) that would be great. Thanks.- Bonus Onus 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That text is from www.dmoz.org . It can't be changed easily because you'll need to contact an editor over there to change it. It's pretty unbias as it is, isn't it? --Gary King 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush campaigning on Clinton fatigue in the 2000 campaign?

I have added a few words about the fact that one of the things that Bush campaigned on was "weariness of the Clinton administration." My evidence was two-fold: I found a reference to a poll showing that 53% of the population was "just plain tired" of the Clinton administration and I even found a reference where Dick Cheney used the sentence "We are all a little weary of the Clinton-Gore routine." That seems to me to be good evidence that Bush campaigned on weariness of the Clinton administration, and furthermore, if people google "Clinton fatigue 2000" lots of references turns up. Aaron Bowen has repeatedly removed these few words and only after removing it several times cited in response the following URL: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.htm that Clinton had high "job" approval ratings. However, even within that poll, there was evidence of low personal approval ratings. Anyway, I don't think it disproves the statement that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue.

I would like more opinions. Here is the edit that is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=136496076&oldid=136486966 KeithCu 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the question: can you find a reputable source that claims that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue? If so, you should be able to quote and cite the source in the article. Jpers36 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's A question. The internal deliberations of a campaign are often secret. But, how do we know that Bush campaigned on lower taxes? Because he used those words. However I found a reference on CNN to the Cheney convention quote I linked to above using that as an example of Clinton fatigue. I also found an excerpt of a NYT article saying this:

Former Pres George Bush and his wife, Barbara...believe that notion of 'Clinton fatigue' is real and that their son's frequent pledge to restore honor and integrity to Oval Office is one that will resonate with voters who feel that those virtues have been compromised by Pres Clinton... "http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F16FB3F5C0C7B8CDDAE0894D8404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBush%2c%20Barbar"

KeithCu 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I made and Keith rejected ( because it doesn't look as good for Bush (his hero)), is that it's okay to mention there was Clinton fatigue (there was), but it's incorrect to say the country was was weary of Clinton, which he put in there, since he had the the highest approval ratings of any president since WWII. Something like "Although Clinton had the highest approval ratings of any president since WWII when he left office, polls show the country disapproved of his personal life and his scandals and Bush campainged on that weariness." Would be fine, it presents both sides of the story and unlike Keiths previous line "He campaigned on the country's weariness of the Clinton Administration" isn't misleading—how can the country be weary of something it approves of in record numbers? Aaron Bowen 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your continued reference to Bush as my hero is neither funny, nor relevant. It does make me think there are childish people on Wikipedia, and my perspective is not welcome. Perhaps you want only like-minded people editing your encyclopedia? Aaron, you could have improved my edits, but instead you just reverted my changes. It was only after several revertings that you even made your suggestion. You are re-writing history, Aaron. BTW, it is possible to be happy with the state of the country and the economy but tired of the scandals. The polls you are citing reference job approval, and those same polls showed low "personal approval." In other words, the polls you cite make my case stronger! You seem okay with saying that there was Clinton fatigue, but not okay to say that there was weariness. I consider that phrasing synonymous. KeithCu 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... an encyclopedia is not really the place to argue original theories about an election, even if they're backed up by primary sources. Write an article for a political publication, it sounds like an interesting topic. But if an article on this doesn't already exist... cobbling together statistics and quotes to make some point isn't what Wikipedia is for. --W.marsh 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that weariness of the clintons is a novel political theory. I googled the phrase "Clinton fatigue" and found 16,100 references. KeithCu 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here. Whether or not the theory is novel is irrelevant. What is relevant is that unless you can find a reliable source which suggests that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue, this theory should not be in the article. Nil Einne 09:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing that references are important. The current questions are: Is "clinton fatigue" an acceptable thing to say, but not "weariness?" Are those phrases synonymous? Is Cheney using "weary" proof that bush campaigned on weariness? Is the quote from Bush's parents above better? KeithCu 10:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand things here. You cannot use Bush's campaign quotes to show that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue/weariness/whatever you want to call it. Using primary sources in this manner is OR, as others have tried to explain. What you need are reliable secondary sources which suggest that Bush campaigned on Clinton fatigue/weariness/whatever. When these secondary sources are found, it's probably best to use whatever they use. If they call it Clinton fatigue, then so do we. If they call it weariness then so do we. Until we have sources, it's pretty pointless arguing over whether to call it weariness/fatigue/tiredness/whatever Nil Einne 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

As I can see from the history, a lot of vandalism is going on in the page at this time. I don't like him either but that doesn't mean that I want his page vandalized. Maybe locking the page for a while would be in order. --Maxl 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is already semiprotected and is unlikely to be unsemiprotected anytime soon. However it's not likely to be fully protected either as the vandalism is only a few times a day. Even tho this is perhaps a high level for a semi-protected article it's not enough to warrant full protection. Protection is only used when vandalism reaches a level that it's uncontrollable e.g. every few mins. Most of the vandalism here is quickly reverted. Besides that, fully protecting it serves no real purpose. Vandalism is likely to quickly reach the same level once unprotected. So unless we want to make this an indefinete fully protected article (which is against policy for a case like this) until a few months after Bush leaves the White House, we won't really do much. Indeed full protection is rarely if ever necessary to deal with vandalism (except in cases where indefinite full protection is warranted). Nil Einne 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates

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

New Low On Approval Rating

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070621/ts_alt_afp/usbushpolitics_070621193228

I can't edit it, so I thought I'd point this out. Currently the article still cites 28% to be his lowest approval rating, when in fact, it is no longer. 74.226.90.237 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

GWB=cheerleader

This category is misleading. Going out and doing a prank once in a cheerleader wig does not make you a cheerleader, any more than Rudolph Giuliani is a cross-dresser because he appeared in SNL in that outfit. He was not a career cheerleader, and I'm not convinced that saying he was so isn't intellectually dishonest, let alone a BLP problem. I tried to take it out twice, but someone keeps putting it back. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The context does make it seem like it was a childish prank, but in fact he was head cheerleader during his senior year at Andover Academy. I have added a reference for this fact. A look over at Category:American cheerleaders clearly shows that being a career cheerleader is not a prerequisite for inclusion in the category. Anyway, in my recent edits, I'm not trying to place any value judgement on whether he should be placed in the category, but one should think more carefully about the merits of removing him before doing so with a glib "I think not." Happy editing, Silly rabbit 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth hurts. But it's nothing to be ashamed of. Andover Academy was an all-boys school at the time. Here are pics of Bush as an Andover cheerleader: [5] [6] FDR was a cheerleader at Harvard. Harvard had all male cheerleaders until the 70's. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a cheerleader at West Point. MrBlondNYC 01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And on FDR's page he is listed in the category.--danielfolsom 13:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Same with Eisenhower. Silly rabbit 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that information helps. It was an all-boys school, and it wasn't just a short prank. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

I think that someone should change his occupation from businessman to President of the United States because that is what his current occupation is. ((unsigned|68.221.20.157}}

• Yes, I entirely agree with this. He is not currently a businessman by any standard meaning of that word. His job is "President of the United States." Perhaps this label should be changed to "Former Occupation" or the like. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The infobox provides the field so that we can see what the president's main occupation was before (and perhaps after) taking office. The Evil Spartan 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree with you Spartan, which is why it should probably be changed to Former Occupation, as that is his former occupation. He is not currently a businessman, but President. Perhaps it could be reverted after he leaves office, if he goes back into business. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree; "Occupation = Businessman" is misleading and probably not NPOV. I requested a change to the template here. --XDanielx 07:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Purple Heart Controversy

Bush accepted a Purple Heart from veteran Bill Thomas. Thomas felt Bush deserved the purple heart do to the verbal assault he as had to take as President. Instead of respectfully refusing the pruple heart Bush accepted it. Because of this he has received criticism from several places. Does anybody know of a valid citable source for this fact?--Dr who1975 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just do a Google search for "bush purple heart bill thomas". Daily Show fan? They did a funny interview with Thomas last night. MrBlondNYC 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree his decision to accept it was 'bizzare' to put it mildly. But seems to minor an issue for this article. Perhaps in a subarticle Nil Einne 19:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue does not seem to rise to the importance of the article. Agreed with Nil Einne. The Evil Spartan 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sealtexas.jpg

Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Breaching" and "overflowing" or "topping" are different events

"Bush denied having received warnings about the possibility of floodwaters breaching the levees protecting New Orleans." This is true.

In the videoconference, whether the levees would be "topped" or not, was mentioned as a "grave concern". That means overflowing, with water spilling over the top of intact levees. "Breaching" means breaking of the levees. The record does not contradict Bush's denial.

I remember when the tape was leaked. It was completely unauthorized, and was a transparent attempt to show Bush being "caught in a lie". The specific controversy fizzled when the distinct definitions of the words were pointed out.

The inclusion of the episode in its current form in the article implies that the "caught in a lie" viewpoint is fact. That is pathetically biased, and should be revised to clarify the point, or be deleted entirely.

67.160.141.110 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the New Orleans levees were breached, and Bush had only been warned they might be topped? The difference seems a bit subtle to me (you'd think the leader of the USA could infer the difference) - however, it may still be worth mentioning in the article. The Evil Spartan 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

honorific-suffix

I've noticed that many American leaders do not have their education included as post-nominals in their infobox; whereas other countries' leaders do (like how Stephen Harper has his MA degree at the top of his infobox). Are honorific suffixes not used in America? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah our politicians wouldn't want to look intelligent or anything. Generally we only display military rank in regards to politics, I wish I were joking. 69.201.134.147

It may be an MOS issue, but in general Americans don't include their degrees as honorifics unless they have a terminal degree (i.e. PhD, MD, etc.). --ElKevbo 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think I've ever heard Bill Clinton along with his lawyer title (or any other president for that matter). At least not often. The Evil Spartan 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think part of that is that the tradiation in the US is not to consider the JD a terminal degree alike to a PhD or MD (there are more advanced degrees in law beyond the first professional degree) and that the JD is not called a "doctor" but often "conselor" instead. Gtadoc 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

George Bush jnr is correct

"Bush is sometimes referred to informally as George Bush Jr. in order to distinguish him from his father. However, because the son's full name is not exactly the same as his father's (the younger is George Walker Bush as opposed to the elder George Herbert Walker Bush), the "Jr." is incorrect."

It is correct in the vast majority of countries, as they do not use any middle names or initials to determine this, hence to call him George Bush Jnr would be correct.

So with no objections, I'm going to change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billzilla (talk • contribs) 02:56, July 10, 2007

He's an American so we use American conventions. I also find the above assertion about the use of middle names "in the vast majority of countries" to be unfounded and presented without any evidence. I'd be okay with a small clarification making clear that this is applicable for American usage and conventions. --ElKevbo 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an international page, not just a US-only one. And I am not from the US and so am versed in non-US terms such as that. I'll edit it to show that it's a US-sepcific thing. Billzilla.

It's standard practice to use US terminology in US articles. Bush simply is not a Jr, as his name is not the same as his father's; he is not a Junior anywhere. You don't rename people when they step within the territory of another country. - auburnpilot talk 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well he's a junior everywhere outside the US, so the article is misleading and should be cleared up. Billzilla.

Please read up on our manual of style. For Americans and American themes, we use American style. For areas under other particular areas, we use that locality (e.g., Canada, New Z., UK, etc.). The Evil Spartan 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you guys can live with it being misleading an wrong so be it. Billzilla.

If by "misleading and wrong" you mean "American", then, yes, we can live with it. The Evil Spartan 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, if by "misleading an wrong" he means "absolutely correct" then yes, so be it. His father's name is George Herbert Walker Bush. His name is George Walker Bush. That's it. They do not have the same name, and therefore are not "Sr." and "Jr." Faithlessthewonderboy 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Pretty much the only country that uses that convention is the US. I don't know of any other country that does. So about 95% of the world sees it differently and while it may be correct in the US, it's very definitely not for the vast majority of people, hence all you have to do to remove the confusion and error is add something like (US only) in there somewhere. Billzilla

Billzilla, since Bush is an American, his name should follow American naming conventions. Compare with Mao Zedong -- we don't call him "Zedong Mao", even though Given Name / Family Name is likely used my more than half the world's population, because the naming standard used by his culture is Family Name / Given Name. Likewise, Bush's culture rejects the use of "Junior" for those people whose middle name does not match that of their parent, so the use of "Junior" to refer to Bush is culturally insensitive. Jpers36 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that, only that it should be clarified (corrected) for non-Americans. That is, the other 95% of the world. It works both ways.Billzilla

I'm not sure what you mean by "It works both ways." A clarification that it is not correct to refer to Bush as "Junior", explaining how the confusion could come about, is acceptable. A clarification that Bush can be correctly referred to as "Junior" outside the US is not acceptable -- Mao Zedong should not be referred to as "Zedong Mao", even by Americans or the British, and the same applies to Bush. Jpers36 14:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a poor example you've given, as the page you've linked to has a link that explains how Chinese names are back-to-front. Or in other words, exactly the principle I'm discussing. I thought Wikipedia was about truth and accuracy, yet I am seeing those things being repressed here, and that is very poor form indeed. Billzilla

I don't know where you're seeing repression, Billzilla. The note at the top of Mao Zedong's mage is exactly the same type of thing that I was referring to when I said, "A clarification that it is not correct to refer to Bush as "Junior", explaining how the confusion could come about, is acceptable." And once again, it is untrue and inaccurate to refer to Mao Zedong as Zedong Mao. It is untrue and inaccurate to refer to George Walker Bush as George Walker Bush, Junior. Jpers36 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Jpers36's example is actually quite perfect. The article on Mao Zedong doesn't explain that it is acceptable to call him "Zedong Mao" in other parts of the world. It explains why his name is the way it appears; Family Name / Given Name. What is not fine is to explain that Bush can be called a junior in other parts of the world, because that is neither the truth nor accurate. This article does the same, explaining it is incorrect "because the son's full name is not exactly the same as his father's...". It can't be any more truthful or accurate. - auburnpilot talk 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

*shakes head* I don't know what you guys are reading, but it's obviously not the same as what I am. I have clearly shown that the example given demonstrated my case, and you chaps have not shown that the vast majority of the world would be correct in calling them senior and junior, yet you again ignore that. I've run out of proof and examples and will leave it at that. You have eroded my faith in Wikipedia being a (mostly) trustworthy reference, and I shall now have to be far more careful when using information from it, as it is clear that too many people maintain innacurate information on it. Billzilla

"[Y]ou chaps have not shown that the vast majority of the world would be correct in calling them senior and junior" -- we haven't shown that, because we don't believe that. We are arguing exactly the opposite, that anyone would be incorrect to call them senior and junior. Let's try this one more time -- the revolutionary communist leader of China, do you call him "Mao Zedong" or "Zedong Mao", and why? Jpers36 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I already have explained it. It appears that the difference in the different dialtects of English is letting you chaps down, and you cannot understand what I am discussing. So as I've already said, there is no point in debating this further. Billzilla

Why don't we just state the fact that he is sometimes called 'Jr' and leave it at that. This is the article on GWB, not US naming conventions. The explanation of the naming convention is an unecessary tangent. If we are to insist that calling him Jr is 'wrong', it must be specified according to which convention this is so.Ashmoo 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, I would be fine with a clarification that it is not correct to refer to Bush as "Junior", explaining how the confusion could come about. That's what we currently have in the article. Jpers36 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, wikipedia shouldn't be telling people what is 'correct' language. If you want to say something is correct or incorrect you need to cite some authority that purports to define the correct method. Is there any cite? Secondly, this seems like such a trivial thing that i question its notability for the article at all. Ashmoo 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps mentioning WP:ENGVAR would be useful here? As an American, Bush's birth certificate would not refer to him as "Jr." since he does not share his father's exact name. I really don't see the controversy here. Okay, maybe if he was British he would be a Jr. (I don't know that, I'm going by what Billzilla said above), but he is not British. So why is this discussion even taking place? BTW, does anyone have a source to his claim that 95% of the world's population would consider him a Jr.? Thanks. :) Faithlessthewonderboy 09:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

New Approval Rating Graph

• 
  President Bush's approval rating from April 2001 to June 2007. ABCNews Poll.
• 
  President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Newsweek Poll.
• 
  President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Gallup Poll.

I made those graphs. You can add them to the main article if you want.--Jean-Francois Landry 15:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Though it would help if you could source it better. It's also, IMHO, a touch misleading to make the graph since 9-2001, as the president's ratings were artificially high due to the WTC attack - however, it would certainly be useful to add a graph since the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The Evil Spartan 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you redo the graphs starting with his inauguration? Gonezales 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I could add 2 more poll on the ABC graph but I would lose in data homogeneity("approve somewhat" and "disapprove somewhat" data are unavailable). You can look at the ABCNews link below.--Jean-Francois Landry 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some data to the Newsweek poll and here are the sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1040a3PoliticsandtheWar.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623564/site/newsweek/
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1723&pg=2
--Jean-Francois Landry 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient reference to Barney (his dog)

Barney has his own dedicated web page on the white house web space and is not mentioned in proportion to his importance to the Bush administration on this entry.

On the contrary, this lovable mascot of the presidential family has his own article: Barney (dog). Silly rabbit 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New Polls show a Plurality of Americans suport impieachment procedings against bush

[[7]] this data should be added to the article, just as significant a even larger majority suports the Impeachment of the VP.

Well, I can't see this video, but if it's Keith Obermann, then he's had an axe to grind with the president for a while, and we'll need much more reliable sources. The Evil Spartan 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann doesn't magically invent poll numbers I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.113.2 (talk) 06:00, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it's already mentioned within the "Domestic perceptions" section, referenced by a poll conducted by American Research Group, Inc. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

As the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) states (unclearly, since the example uses "prime minister"),

When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses the, use "Prime Minister". If the sentence uses a, go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "The British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)

Therefore, when making reference to the specific office (i.e., using "president" as a proper noun, as in "The (pP)resident walked the dog today"), capitalization is proper while lack of capitalization is improper. The President walked the dog today is correct; The president walked the dog today is incorrect. The rule of thumb, as stated above, is definite vs indefinite article. Jpers36 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

However, as we are not talking about a prime minister but a president in this article, the preceding section of the MoS is more relevant:

Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan."

I hope that makes clearer the reason for the changes I made. --John 21:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not having heard back, I went ahead and changed to MoS-compliant usage. Another issue I noticed is that we use the word an awful lot in this article. Many of the instances of "the president" should probably just read "Bush". I'll save that for another day though. --John 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to respond until now, because I headed home from work and I've been trying to get a new DSL line up and running since. I've posted a question on the MoS talk page about this. Jpers36 03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yale degree

Under the 'childhood to mid-life' section there is some misinformation about our presidents history. For example: Bush recieved a Bachlor of Art degree? That's a lie. The truth is that he recieved a Bachlor's degree in history. Read this and compare it to the current 'childhood to mid-life' section.

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Following graduation, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father’s successful 1988 Presidential campaign, President Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998.

This is the truth. Look it up. --Lionheart65 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change and provided a reference. I'm not sure which is correct, but the White House biography simply identifies the degree as a Bachelor's degree, so that's how I've altered the wording. It was likely just an oversight. - auburnpilot talk 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I got the information given to you from the White House biography. It does specify what type of Bachlor's degree he recieved, which was a bachlor's in history. I also think that his Master's of Business Admenistration from Harvard Business School should be added. As well as the fact that he became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms, and include him working on his father's successful 1988 Presidential campaign.

All of which is from the White House biography. Here is the web site to avoid further confusion, http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html

--Lionheart65 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The consecutive four-year terms is important since it's something that should be included in his biography. The sentence, "Bush attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts where he played baseball, but made a more significant mark as an effective head cheerleader at the all-boys school during his senior year," is irrelevent and unsubstantiated. It is nothing more than another attempted jab at the president. Adding the part about his consecutive four-year terms, and the fact that it was the first time in Texas history that someone was elected for four consecutive terms is important.

--Lionheart65 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it from a history major: a bachelor's degree in history = Bachelor of Arts, or a BA in History. The same would be true for people who majored in English, political science, philosophy, etc. If you major in chemistry, biology, physics, etc., you would receive a BS, or Bachelor of Science. Finally, if you major in art, theater, film, dance or something like that, you would receive a BFA, or Bachelor of Fine Arts. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. It depends on the institution and the classes that comprise one's degree plan. For example, all midshipmen at the US Naval Academy receive (or did when I was a mid) a BS, even those that major in engineering or the sciences. That occurs because the curriculum is so heavily based in science classes for all midshipmen (they all take Calc III, two semesters of physics, two semesters of chemistry, etc.). --ElKevbo 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I'm unfamiliar with the curriculum at Annapolis, but I believe that that is true because even if you major in a liberal art (English, for example), the core curriculum of the academy is in the sciences, so you will have taken many science classes by the time you graduate. (I just reread your comment and see that you already said all that). But this is certainly an exception to the rule. If you graduate from Yale with a degree in history, you will receive a BA. Faithlessthewonderboy 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this source is a satirical blog and is inappropriate for the main article, I think the transcript in it is real. If you enlarge the transcript, you can make out that it says BA in History awarded 6/10/68. My reason for believing the transcript to be valid is that it says his cumulative GPA as a Yale undergraduate was 77 with SAT scores of 566 verbal and 640 math, which is discussed elsewhere on this page as being true. Pericles899 05:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

National Guard service

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

TIME

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

Governor of Texas

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

Agreed. Հէտտֆոնէսոնէս^c 21:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justices

WHY, WHY this has NOT been discussed disturbs me almost as much as the subject matter at hand.

FACT: President George W. Bush has appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices. One of his appointments was for CHIEF Justice. Last time I checked there are only 9 Justices on the bench. His appointments have and will exert a great impact on the face of this nation for decades to come. There should be discussion on how the courts have been slanted heavily toward conservatism. This discussion will highlight what Bush's actions have on the fabric of this nation.

Furthermore, does the Supreme Court represent the will of the people. In the event the courts pass judgment on society that are perverse, then where does society turn to for answers ?? The energy of multiple issues will not vanish, because a Conservative President has dictated societies will. Society will respond, and possibly in a violent action.

I apologize for my liberal leanings, however I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I think that Supreme Court Justices are just as important as the myriad of issues cited for President Bush.

Please look into this matter.

Thank You,

Backspan 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be a mention of the supreme court justices he's nominated, and probably a mention that both have a more conservative leaning; though I would probably not put it in the article the way that you've said it. We have to be careful about how we phrase it; many people (myself included) happen to think the recent apointees did more to make the court centrist, compared to the left-leaning mess that was there before (if you don't think the previous court was left-leaning, then try paying attention to who in the media was complaining about it more). In any case, this isn't the place to talk about the politics. Do you have something specific to add? The Evil Spartan 23:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be a mention of his appointees, sure. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reputable source claiming that this made the Court more conservative, true as it may be. Nor am I convinced that the political leanings of his appointees is relevant to this article. And I'm as liberal as they come, so you know I'm not biased in favor of Bush. Also, Backspan, the Supreme Court was created so that there would be a branch of the federal government which was in no way answerable to the people. This is so that they can make decisions without fear of upsetting a constituency. But there are a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that the Court does not wield too much power. Indeed, that goes for all three branches. Faithlessthewonderboy 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court apointees can be found at Presidency of George W. Bush.--Southern Texas 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

A few sources [8] [9]. Really I'm surprised it's possible that an American hasn't heard that the Supreme Court has taken a more conservative twist. Other then the fact it's extremely obvious, from memory and a quick Google it appears it's something that's talked about a lot, especially given that this is likely something that will have a very long legacy (which is also something talked a lot about). Nil Einne 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe my initial comments properly convey the reaction I had to the "George W. Bush" article. I feel that the changes are still necessary for this site. In addition, I would like to state for the record, that I am not an English Teacher/Historian. It is quite acceptable to say Bush has made the courts more "Centrist" than previous administrations. My concern was that the change in direction had not been addressed. I reiterate that the stark change in direction of this administration is a highly visible item, and must be addressed inside this web site.

On the subject of checks and balances, in my opinion, the Supreme Court has only one. Every Justice member must die at some time in the future. Assuming current actuarial tables, the average person lives into their 80's. Some individuals will live past 90. It is the responsibility of future generations to select Supreme Court Justices carefully. The whims of the people are heard less often than the Federal Reserve Appointments. It is important to note that our founding fathers intended to "Protect" the selection process of Justices. Senate Confirmation still allows the people's voice to be heard. However, Justices must understand the will of the people to be great justices. It will be a shame to give a less principled Justice lifetime employment. I believe that everyone understands this concept with regards to Teacher Tenure. The same idea applies here.

To "Southern Texas", I indeed looked over your website on Wikipedia. Bravo!! This is the start of what I had been asking for. The reference section of the article contained the names of the justices and when they were nominated and appointed. Also, there was a mini-paragraph on Bush's desire for control. Add in a few more comments about Bush's intended direction of the Courts, and the message will be complete.

Backspan,

Backspan 02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Backspan, I think you're still missing the point. You said that "Justices must understand the will of the people to be great justices." But understanding the will of the people is of no concern to the Court, and it was specifically designed that way. They are appointed without the consultation of the people, and use their legal expertise to make correct rulings, not popular ones. That's why they're appointed instead of being voted into office, and why they hold life-long terms. We pay them because they're smarter than us and deal with issues that the average person doesn't understand and whose opinion is irrelevant. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't a forum on the subject (please see the banner at the topic). This is to propose changes. The Evil Spartan 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The actual facts of this person should remain in this article. As I was reading, I began to notice severe bias and complaints about the president. No matter what the political party, the Wikipedia is NOT a place to spew your rants and views. Its supposed to contain facts.

Noted directly from the POV link.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are not many if none of those kinds of sources in this article. I recommend a complete check of this article. If you wish to rant about anything at all, it should all remain on the talk page, away from actual facts (eg. birth date of person)

-Nincb

--Marked Article POV Check--

Most of the bias can be found in the "Criticism and public perception" area.

Do you have any specifics? This article contains nearly 180 citations, the great majority of which are from mainstream news outlets (BBC, CNN, NBC, New York Times, etc.). I can't say I agree with your assertion that this article has few to no reliable sources. - auburnpilot talk 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

At this time I can not manually feed through hundreds of citations looking for matches of this discussed bias. This is something that everyone should look into.

Edit: In my personal opinion, some of these sources (Like the New York Times) tend to be biased in themselves, but that is up for discussion and not up to me.

-Nincb

Its not everyone else's job to search for the bias you accuse this article of having, its yours. If you can't be bothered to actually give any specifics, I'm going to remove that tag.--Mbc³⁶² 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Low SAT and GPA true?

I found out from a source that George W. Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 verbal, 640 math) and that his cumulative undergraduate GPA at Yale was 2.35. Is this true? I find it surprising that someone this mediocre can get away with being president. --143.58.196.120 10:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what bearing this has on the actual article being dicussed? If you are putting forth information to be included in the article please identify your "source" so that your information can be verified.

If this is true, you're most certainly going to have to source it. The Evil Spartan 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• His SAT score was indeed a 1206/1600, according to this source. Not sure about the 2.35 GPA, but his average at Yale was 77, one point higher compared to John Kerry's 76.(Source) By the way, please keep in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Economics section

Some POV here and inaccuracies:

1. "Under the Bush Administration, unemployment peaked at a high of 6.2% in June 2003, and is currently at a low of 4.4%."

4.4% is not the lowest of Bush's tenure. It was slightly lower at the beginning of his term (4.2%) and peaked at 6.3% in June of 2003. It's currently at 4.5%. [[10]] This assumes that the numbers quoted in the article are for the "seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate". For accuracy, I propose re-wording this to:

"Under the Bush Administration, unemployment rose from 4.2% to a high of 6.3% in June 2003, dropping to the current rate of 4.5%."

2. "The economy has remained strong, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average setting several record highs and the GDP experiencing healthy growth.[48][49]"

This is POV, backed up by Bush's appointed Secretary of Commerce. Growth has actually been very slow by historical standards. [[11]] In the last 4 quarters, it has slowed further, flattening out at 0.7% last quarter. Instead POV statements about disputed strength of growth, why not just cite the average real GDP growth during Bush's tenure, which is 2.5% (rounded up to nearest decimal), something like "Real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5%".

3. "Several news sources argue that the economy, however strong, is only benefiting the wealthy, and not the majority of middle and lower-class citizens,[50][51][52] while others have claimed the exact opposite.[53]"

So it states as fact an opinion that the economy is strong then implies that only a few news sources think otherwise.Gmb92 08:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding to this, one of the news sources quotes facts from the Congressional Budget Office.

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."

This is easily verifiable. Here is the CBO data to support this, comparing total effective rates from 2000 to 2004 (beyond 2004 tax provisions are expected to sunset in this study).

Effective federal tax rates: 2001-2014 [[12]]

Effective federal tax rates 1979-2001: [[13]]

Another economic measure of middle class prosperity is real median household income, which has remained stagnant. [[14]]

4. There's no mention of the large changes in federal budget deficits in this article. In 2000, the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $86 billion surplus which is now a $434 billion deficit, resulting from tax cuts and spending increases. Page 1: [[15]]

Gmb92 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not POV at all, if you change it you will make it POV. Please don't try to misrepresent the facts.--Southern Texas 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is quite selective in its coverage and definitely deserves to be expanded. Sentences like, "The economy has remained strong, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average setting several record highs and the GDP experiencing healthy growth" do not adequately describe the state of the economy over Bush's entire time in office. Accusing others of trying to misrepresent the facts generally tends to be unproductive; please try to work with others so that the article's text is acceptable to everyone rather than just insisting that it remains unchanged.--Mbc³⁶² 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, It is my opinion that it is fine and doesn't need to be expanded it expresses what mainstream economists feel about the economy. I am sorry if that doesn't fit your opinion of how to help the article but this article is already too big, if the assertions are sourced then maybe they can be placed in one of the other George W. Bush articles. I ask you to refrain from calling me unproductive, I find that unproductive. The quote you cited is actually fact, it expresses no POV at all and needs no rewritting, if you feel it does please state how it should rather be stated. I am being productive I ask you to do the same and not just accuse me.--Southern Texas 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying "the section is fine" without addressing any of the points is not productive. I've added to the section above. Few "mainstream economists" are going to say 0.7% real GDP growth last quarter or the < 2% average of the last 4 quarters is strong. Overall, real GDP growth has averaged 2.5% which is low by historical standards. My point above is not to include my opinions, which are also backed by economists, but to replace POV statements about the economy's strength with a simple factual statement about average real GDP growth sourced with the BEA link (in the subsection about the economy we can further hash out various arguments). Let the readers decide from the facts how strong it's been.Gmb92 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why it isn't POV:
1. It is true that unemployment is at a record low
2. The economy has remained strong it hasn't fallen at all so using the word remained before strong demonstrates it is not a POV statement

This is POV:

"Under the Bush Administration, unemployment rose from 4.2% to a high of 6.3% in June 2003, dropping to the current rate of 4.5%."

It says nothing about the levels being record lows and puts a strong empasis on the high which is misleading.

"Real Growth"

Who's to say what real growth is, just state that there is "healthy growth" that is fine and isn't POV. You know there is growth you even concede that so please don't mislead. It is fine as it is, Thank you--Southern Texas 17:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unemployment is not at a record low, either historically or during Bush's term, as the bls.gov link clearly indicates. The unemployment rate was 4.2% at the start of his term. Thus, the statement "Under the Bush Administration, unemployment rose from 4.2% to a high of 6.3% in June 2003, dropping to the current rate of 4.5%." is both factually correct and free of POV. It does not put any emphasis on the high. In fact, it is mentioned so that we can observe the drop. Perhaps you would prefer "Under the Bush Administration, unemployment rose from 4.2% to the current rate of 4.5%".

"Real" in economic terms means inflation-adjusted, which is what is generally quoted. The economy has indeed slowed in recent quarters as the bea.gov link indicates. Why not just state the average real GDP growth rate rather than debatable adjectives like "strong" or "healthy" and let readers decide.Gmb92 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a POV warrior, who is trying to slant this article from the center to the left. I looked at your edit history and you tried to do this to the Ronald Reagan article. What you call POV is actually just aspects of the presidency that you don't like because they are successes. There are other articles on wikipedia that are slanted so far to the left it is rediculous, but do you try to change these, no of course not. Just keep the facts, the facts are that unemployment is low, the economy has remained strong and this is backed by the records set at the stock market and the "healthy" growth of the economy. Get over it and move on. I am finished here.--Southern Texas 00:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you prefer opinion over facts but Wikipedia requires a neutral POV and this section certainly doesn't read that way.Gmb92 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheney becoming president

CNN reported a few minutes ago that Bush is having an operation this weekend and invoking the 25th. Just a heads up - I'll add it nowSamaster1991 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you do anything make sure you spell Cheney correctly.--Southern Texas 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Bush transfer of power for previous transfer. - auburnpilot talk 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Various changes I made...

I made some changes and already they have been reverted with what I call poor or no explanation...

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

Reference

Because the list is so long, I changed it to

{{scroll box|text={{reflist|2}}|height=200px}}

But I thought perhaps the usage above may justify a template on its own. If you're interested, please discuss at Template talk:Reflist#Contained in a box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As I originally stated when I reverted your initial edit: Yuck! I hate that format and the very idea that we would seek to hide or reduce the perceived number of references. It's a solution in search of a problem. It complicates navigation for users with little benefit. In fact, it's actually a detriment to hide references. I'll wait for others to chime in as I've already reverted this edit once. --ElKevbo 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support reverting back to a simple {{reflist}}. I'm not sure how it's working for the rest of you, but this new "scroll box" forces me to use two separate scroll bars to view the references. It's really obnoxious to not be able to easily view the references. - auburnpilot talk 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with darkorange and ElKevbo and have reverted it back. Aaron Bowen 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference list was extremely long but is this a bad thing? -shows compilation of osurces - it is to be expected in an article on Mr Bush ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Harboring a known terrorist in Florida

Why is there ample information on recent developments of Cuban and Venezuelan requests for the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles, a known terrorist on the CIA's payroll from 1976-????, recently arrested and released in Florida, and who is currently at large in Florida in all the relevant places EXCEPT the article on George W. Bush? Recently declassified FBI documents list him as an associate of Orlando Bosch, whom George H.W. Bush pardoned in 1990 despite being convicted in Venezuela with Posada for the Cubana jet bombing in 1976 and against the recommendations of the National Security Agency. There is info on all of these documents and the Cuban and Venezuelan extradition requests in articles on the bombing itself, Posada Carriles, Bosch, George H.W. Bush, and Jeb Bush. Isn't it OBVIOUS that something needs to be added under George W. Bush since this story has been reported in every news outlet domestic and foreign and the National Security Archives has obtained declassified FBI documents through FOIA as recent as May 8, 2007? Isn't it logical for there to be a section under George W. Bush regarding this recent development considering it completely shatters the "Bush Doctrine" of "those who harbor terrorists are treated as terrorists?" These developments were first reported domestically and globally in March 2005 and again on May 11, 2007 following requests for extradition from Cuba and Venezuela. Pistolpierre 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this correct. George HW Bush pardoned a guy who has a supposed association with another guy, who Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez claim is a terrorist, and you

think that it is relevant to this article (George W. Bush) because is shows hypocrisy in the Bush Doctrine? The short answer to your question is "no". Please read WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:BLP for enlightenment. - Crockspot 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't have this correct. George H.W. Bush was the Director of the CIA when Posada blew up the plane. The National Archive documents link Posada to the CIA. George W. Bush has been harboring Posada in Florida considering George H.W. Bush is out of office. George H.W. Bush pardoned Orlando Bosch, not Posada. The harboring is being done by George W. Bush. The Bush Doctrine says that we do not harbor terrorists. The FBI considers Posada to be a terrorist. George W. Bush considers him to be a regular guy. He was arrested and released on immigration charges. Why are you confused? Enlightened? Pistolpierre 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have provided no evidence linking George W. Bush to whoever it is you art trying to link him to. His father possibly could be linked, but you have provided no evidence of that (or of anything else). So far, you are just spouting what sounds like POV ranting and original research. I still suggest you read the policies I linked previously, because you obviously are not "getting" it. This is an encyclopedia, which contains verified, sourced, and neutral information. It is not your personal dart board for exposing hypocrisy in people you disagree with politically. - Crockspot 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is that the FBI has declared Posada Carriles to be a terrorist. The evidence is the declassified FBI and CIA documents sitting in the national archives. The evidence is right here if you have the cojones to look it over. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/index.htm Pistolpierre 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do the documents you are speaking of specifically say that Bush is harboring a terrorist? If they don't then what you are claiming is original research. I think you're looking at the above mentioned documents and then deciding based on them that Bush is harboring a terrorist. That's you're own research and therefore is not appropriate for the article. If you can find a source that meets Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources that says specifically that Bush is harboring a terrorist then the info can be added to the article. Good luck on finding a source that says what you're claiming specifically and meets the guidlines on reliable sources and is not original research. Elhector 18:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't link Bush to Carriles, it links the FBI and CIA to Carriles. Bush != FBI. - Revolving Bugbear 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You have a touch time connecting the dots. The President is something called the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch. He appoints the Attorney General. He works with Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, and the State Department. The National Archives obtains government documents through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). The FBI and CIA have admitted that we have worked with Posada Carriles and Bosch through the facts shown in these documents. You are either a conspiracy theorist or unwilling to admit that George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are responsible for pardoning and harboring Bosch and Posada Carriles despite public information proving their terrorist attacks on civilians. Original research? Is that what you call private citizens twisting the arm of the feds to declassify documents? Do you believe that people should have power over their government? Is it "original research" to read articles in the mainstream media about the release of this terrorist? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071106/pl_afp/uscubavenezuelaattacksposada_071106222344 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/national/09exile.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-20-posada_x.htm Pistolpierre 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when you would utter the phrase "connect the dots". We do not "connect the dots" on wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia that documents other reliable sources who have "connected the dots" already. "Connecting the dots" is original research, which is forbidden here. Once again, I will encourage you to read the policies I have linked for you. You obviously have not read them yet. - Crockspot 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what Crockspot pointed out, I would also like to encourage you to read WP:CIVIL. - Revolving Bugbear 19:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"You have a touch time connecting the dots." - You can't connect dots here, not for the purposes of Wikipedia, that's original research. You could be entirely right about what you're saying above, but Wikipedia has rules and guidelines that must be followed. I didn't write the rules, i just follow them. I recommend that you read up on all the guidelines of Wikipedia. If you don't like them then maybe this isn't the project for you. I think you're missing the whole point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's mission is to have articles that include sourced information from reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. What you've stated above doesn't fit here because it doesn't meet the criteria. No offense, but you personally are not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia guidlines, and until you find a reliable source that states specifically what you've said above then there is no reliable source to cite. I know that's not the answer your going to like or what you want to hear, but it is what it is. Elhector 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are all very very very confused. I used the phrase "connect the dots" to comment on the association between the Chief Executive and his relationship with the FBI, CIA, State Department, and Department of Justice. The fact that he appoints the Attorney General and defines the parameters of what a terrorist is not to obscure the relationship between the Executive and Judicial branches. Why do you act confused when I cite not one, not two, not three, but four reliable sources who have done the "original research". I have done none. The NY Times article, the Yahoo article, the U.S.A. Today article, and the National Archives article all report on the classification of a known terrorist by FBI and CIA standards being harbored in Florida. Clearly you are affiliated with Foggy Bottom or possibly just plain foggy. Pistolpierre 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in any of the articles you posted that says "George W. Bush is harboring terrorists." Maybe I missed it though. Where in those does it say that? Elhector 19:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From the NY Times article: "Mr. Posada's case could create tension between the politics of the global war on terrorism and the ghosts of the cold war on communism. If Mr. Posada has indeed illegally entered the United States, the Bush administration has three choices: granting him asylum; jailing him for illegal entry; or granting Venezuela's request for extradition. A grant of asylum could invite charges that the Bush administration is compromising its principle that no nation should harbor suspected terrorists. But to turn Mr. Posada away could provoke political wrath in the conservative Cuban-American communities of South Florida, deep sources of support and campaign money for President Bush and his brother Jeb, the state's governor." Pistolpierre 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Did Bush grant him asylum? Also, from what you've quoted above if Bush grants him an asylum it doesn't say he'd be harboring a terrorist, it simply states some people might cry foul over it. Still doesn't specifically say Bush is harboring a terrorist. Elhector 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As I see it, the bottom line is this: There are so, so, so many criticisms of Dubya and controversies that can be connected to the current administration, that it would be ludicrous to try and list all of them in this article. Only the most notable controversies should be included, and frankly, this one does not seem to be one of the more notable -- particularly because there is no reliable evidence of direct involvement by Bush (yes, it is his administration, so presumably he has some say in it, but we can't list every single US gov't controversy in this article. And yes, the NY Times speculates that Bush's relationship with his brother Jeb might have something to do with it, but even they aren't directly saying "Bush has manipulated the FBI's classification and treatment of Posada in order to garner favor with Florida Cuban-Americans"). Unless this issue becomes a major part of the story of Bush's presidency -- which in my opinion it hasn't, at least not yet -- then the rationale for including it in this article is very weak at best.

To put it another way: Adding this tertiary controversy to the article dilutes the main points about criticism of the Bush administration. When it comes to criticism of president Bush, four articles dealing with a topic is pretty insigificant. I bet I could find five hundred articles about the mismanagement of the war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, etc. These topics have a direct connection to Bush (it is public info that he gave the orders, and he's given speeches defending the position) and countless media outlets have criticized Bush in regards to these topics. I just don't see the same connection with the Posada case. --Jaysweet 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that you "don't see the same connection with the Posada case?" This smacks of "original research." Let the journalists decide whether there is a perception that Bush is harboring a terrorist in Florida. Let the journalists decided whether George H.W. Bush harbored a terrorist in Florida. Oh wait, they already have done that original research. The fact that this perception exists is a political reality and one does not need to "connect the dots" or "make the same connection" based on the volume of criticism on Iraq vis à vis the corresponding volume of "reliable sources". The reason there is a lack of volume in the U.S. is because we are afraid of our perceptions and instead opt to ignore the political realities of the "War on Terrorism" in regards to JFK and 41s complicity with terrorists. The problem is that JFK, 41, and 43 are the worst sort of liberal incompetents. It is ironic that 43 cites McKinley as his favorite president considering he is the one who got us involved with Cuba. It is also ironic that it was the "liberal media" that garned support for the war with Spain that took us into Cuba. Only difference is that today they are taking us into the Middle East. These are not perceptions, they are realities. This is not original research. I have not made any connections. I have only perceived realities and cited reliable sources. It is obvious that Wikipedia is hopelessly liberal. This is sad considering it is supposed to be unbiased. Pistolpierre 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The rules we quote are specifically what prevent Wikipedia from becoming biased. You have still failed to produce a source that says "Bush is harboring terrorists". The source would specifically have to say that. You haven't show us one yet that says this. Elhector 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That is some strong eyewash. I highlight the portion that says if George W. Bush acquits or fails to extradite Posada Carriles he will be perceived as harboring a known terrorist whom by the CIA and FBI's own admission is linked to state terrorism. Then the charges against Posada Carriles are dropped by a Texas judge. By the rules and/or your own logic or by the rules of "original research" or "reliable sources" you believe the following: 1) when the NY Times or the AP quotes Castro, Chavez, the CIA, the FBI, or simply states on its own that George W. Bush will be perceived as harboring terrorists they are POV pushing or doing original research and are not reliable sources and not worthy of mentioning in the George W. Bush article. 2) if the NY Times prints a story today saying the Bush administration has refused extradition of a known terrorist according to declassified FBI and CIA documents and the judge who sentenced his accomplice Orlando Bosch you cannot mention that he is harboring a known terrorist unless the press says so, irregardless of their previous story saying if Posada is not prosecuted then Bush will be perceived as harboring a known terrorist. 3) the National Archives website is guilty of POV pushing and original research and is not a reliable source 4) The media decides what is newsworthy and whatever it prints is newsworthy so long as the political reality and the perceptions that go along with it do not exist in the present legal environment governed by Anglo-Saxon/American law. In other words, it makes no difference whether the known terrorist is breathing free in Florida as a result of a Texas judge because the NY Times hasn't written about it in today's paper. 5) The present political reality and its corresponding perceptions are simply whatever is explicitly printed in today's newspaper. It doesn't matter what was printed in yesterday's paper. It is obvious that you are somebody who swallows everything the media serves up. Pistolpierre 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I personally believe. I leave that at the door when I come here to edit. I agree with you the rules are silly here sometimes but they are what they are. I would also recommend that you check your attitude. Putting words in my mouth as far as what i do and don't believe from the media is not very civil and is unappreciated. If you categorically disagree with what we're saying here then simply be bold and add the info yourself into the article. Make sure you cite sources properly and don't come to any conclusions on your own based upon what you've read in the sources your using. Just be prepared to defend your edit logically and within the confines of the guidelines of Wikipedia. If you find that no one agrees with your edits and still believe they're valid then you can resort to setting up a Request for comments to get some perspective from editors outside of this conversation. The next step after that would be mediation. Elhector 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, um, I can't stand Bush, so I am certainly not trying to whitewash anything here. Anyway, you misinterpreted what I meant when I said "same level of connection." I mean in terms of the sources.

The point I was making is that Dubya is the friggin' president, so whenever he does so much as take a crap, it's big news. For some subjects, four articles would be more than enough to show notability and warrant inclusion in an article. For the president, maybe not so much... --Jaysweet 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaysweet are you saying that what makes something newsworthy is the volume of stories there are in the U.S. media regarding an issue? There are probably dozens if not hundreds of stories about Posada Carriles in the foreign press. If the liberal media will not challenge Bush on the Iraq War when it matters as opposed to long after the damage has been done, what makes you think they would want to cover the problems posed by the pardon of Bosch and the dismissed charges against Posada Carriles?

Elhector I am not trying to be uncivil. I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth and apologize if that was what you thought my intention was. My intention was to point out the problem with addressing this issue that arise because people falsely think you are POV pushing, doing original research, or citing unreliable sources. I was trying to understand the objections to including this issue in the article. Pistolpierre 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but I am saying that Wikipedia doesn't get to decide what is newsworthy and what isn't -- news outlets gets to decide that. Granted, "newsworthy" and "notable" are not synonymous, but in the case of criticisms of a current world leader, there is a very strong correlation.

That said, if Posada is big news internationally, that would definitely change my opinion on the matter... I would be unable to verify that personally, so I can't comment on that. If that is your position -- that, despite no coverage in the US news, this is big news internationally and therefore is a notable part of the Bush story, then I don't really have a comment either way. --Jaysweet 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is mention about Prescott Bush being involved with the Nazis despite only a single Fox News article on his financial collaboration with the Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Shouldn't George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush be held to the same standard regarding Bosch and Posada Carriles? Is the media silence indicative of the problems with the liberal media? I am understanding more and more the media silence regarding the build-up to the Iraq War. People do not enjoy having their perceptions of leaders challenged. I have encountered much resistance in editing the Bonaparte article for falsely portraying him as ethnically French and Roman Catholic. It is tempting to let people feel entitled to their own facts when you see how exhausting it is setting the record straight. I have even had opposition in describing George W. Bush as an evangelical leader. Pistolpierre 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Prescott Bush is not a current world leader, he was the grandpappy of a current world leader and a former senator. You wouldn't expect there to be thousands of articles about every time he sneezes.

As I said, "newsworthy" and "notable" are not synonymous, I'm not trying to imply that they are. I'm just saying that it is difficult for me to imagine something (controversy or no) that would be objectively notable about the presidency of George W. Bush that wouldn't be plastered over a bazillion newspapers. But anyway, you are saying (I think) that it is plastered over a bazillion newspapers, it's just not in American newspapers, and if that is the case, I don't really have a comment.

(On a side note, Bush's ties to evangelicals have been big, big news, and I absolutely support mention of his religious disposition. It's notable, relevant, and verifiable.) --Jaysweet 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you are wasting a lot of editors' time here. I would suggest starting a blog to discuss these issues that seem very important to you. - Crockspot 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot You are not very welcoming. You are also accusing me of bad faith. Are these not violations? Who is to say that you are not wasting my time? It is apparent that you do not want me editing the George W. Bush article. Start a blog? What for? There are already reliable sources and original research done by major U.S. media outlets. Pistolpierre 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not very welcoming.

Not that there is an excuse for incivility, but if you are going to fling insults like "you sure have a tough time connecting the dots" at people who disagree with you, don't expect to make friends too quickly.

Who is to say that you are not wasting my time?

Everyone who has responded to your assertions has disagreed with you. You have the power to stop this argument by dropping it.

It is apparent that you do not want me editing the George W. Bush article.

He never said that. He did, however, say that you can't add stuff that is against WP policy. If you have something constructive to add that conforms with Wikipedia policy, go ahead, and I can assure you (as someone who has had extensive prior contact with him) that if you do it in a reasonable and civil way, he will have no problem with it.

There are already reliable sources and original research done by major U.S. media outlets.

No, there is speculation and analysis, neither of which belongs on Wikipedia.

If you would like an explanation of anything that has been discussed here, I would be more than happy to oblige. However, you are unlikely to get anywhere further with this pursuit.

Peace, and happy wiki'ing. - Revolving Bugbear 22:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I didn't insult anybody. If anything, from the get go in this discussion, I have been treated like an idiot by Crockspot. How absurd to accuse me of being unwelcoming or insulting. I was only pointing out how my links are all "reliable sources" and how I have done not any "original research". Nobody has proven I am wrong. Why? Because I cited the exact perceptions and realities in question regarding what is newsworthy and constitutes original research; I am not going to keep repeating myself. I will only say that you are assuming bad faith on my part. Why don't you let Crockspot speak for himself? I am not trying to be unwelcoming towards you.

No, there is speculation and analysis, neither of which belongs on Wikipedia. Revolving Bugbear

So the New York Times, AP, USA Today, the National Archives, and the Wikipedia articles on Posada Carriles and Bosch are not reliable sources? The journalists of the NY Times, AP, USA Today, and the National Archives have not done "original research"? Is that what you are saying. If so explain how these articles are "speculation and analysis" as opposed to "original research". Pistolpierre 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, Pistolpierre, as defined by the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, the Wikipedia articles on Posada Carriles and Bosch are not reliable sources. It is extremely frustrating that you are not aware of this. I don't mean to be harsh here, but do you actually read the Wikipedia policies that people point you to? WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:BLP, are all extremely relevant to the argument you are making, and frankly, I now suspect that you haven't read any of them. --Jaysweet 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you might be in violation for assuming bad faith since I have read them. My mention of the Wikipedia articles was in reference to their sources, sorry for the confusion. Yes you are right that those articles themselves are not original sources. However, you can't prove that the AP, USA Today, NY Times, FBI, CIA, and National Archives are not reliable sources. You would have done so. It is absolutely absurd for anybody to do so. I mentioned the articles on Posada and Bosch because they mention the FBI, CIA, and domestic media outlets as reliable sources. I should have said that these articles are proof that the FBI, CIA, and domestic media outlets like the AP, AFP, USA Today, and NY Times are reliable sources. Again, my mistake for referring to them as original sources. I understand your point. And I will modify my accusation of accusing you of bad faith but only slightly. It appears you have overlooked or intentionally ignored the point I was trying to make by failing to respond regarding the other reliable sources. Please correct me if I'm wrong, or are you still claiming that the others are not reliable sources? -- Pistolpierre (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt Jaysweet is guilty of bad faith. He's simply trying to explain to you why everyone is getting so frustrated with you over this. You say you have read the guildelines, but that doesn't mean that you understand them. And from what you've been continually stating here I doubt that you do understand them. For example, Jaysweet told you above that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and you immediately above start talking about how USA Today, NY Time, AFP, ect are reliable sources. Nobody said they weren't. You clearly didn't pay any attention to what Jaysweet said. You see what I'm saying, he's talking about Wikipedia not being a realiable source and you're counter is that the stuff you listed above is. Why would you start talking about USA Today, NY Time, AFP, ect when Jaysweet commented about Wikipedia not being a reliable source. Only reason I can deduce is that you're not paying any attention to anything anyone is telling you here. As far as USA Today, NY Time, AFP, ect go the issue with those is original research. All of the articles you list speculate that Bush might be going against his doctrine. They speculate. No speculation is allowed here. None of those stories say implicitly that bush has violated his own doctrine. They just say it might be viewed that way. That's speculation. Please stop accusing everyone of bad faith around here. You have several editors who are VERY VERY VERY familiar with all of the guidlines telling you you're not getting it. I would think that would throw up a red flag in your mind. -- Elhector (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are possibly unaware of how ignorant your response is. You know very well that I mentioned the AP, AFP, NY Times, FBI, CIA, and the National Archives at the very beginning of this discussion. I explained why I mentioned the Wikipedia articles on Bosch and Posada Carriles and you ignored this explanation. I even admitted it was a mistake for me to include them as original research. You are either paranoid or assuming bad faith. And in any event you are not very welcoming. I understand what an original source. I understand what speculation is. If a reliable source comments that the President will be perceived as negligent if he ignores to rebuild the Gulf Coast levees or take emergency procedures ahead of another Category 5 hurricane, that is not speculation that is reality. You can ignore reality as much as you like but there is a price for ignorance and negligence. -- Pistolpierre (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"If a reliable source comments that the President will be perceived as negligent if he ignores to rebuild the Gulf Coast levees or take emergency procedures ahead of another Category 5 hurricane, that is not speculation that is reality." See the part about "perceive"? An article saying someone will be perceived as something is speculation. This article is not about how a news source speculates a president might be percieved. It's also not for displaying every possible fault a president might have. This is a biographical article aboug George W. Bush. And as such this article cannot be strictly about his presidency, that is but one part in his whole life. Same goes for the harboring of a terrorist rant you keep going on about. If you found a news source that had polling data showing the public did in fact perceive this as a break of the Bush doctrine then you might have an argument, but a news source simply saying the public might perceive it that way is not good enough, that amounts to pure speculation. For it not to be speculation the news source would have to have something to back that statement up, like polling data or a section of the government accusing him of such. Otherwise, anytime any news source said something negative about the president or his policies it would be fair game to put it in the article, which would just ruin it at that point. Which brings me back to the Wikipedia policies. They're designed to prevent just that. Information that is added to the biography of a living person must meet the most stringent of guidlines, and frankly what you've provided doesn't meet them. I haven't seen this yet posted here, so I'll advise you to also check out the Wikipeida policy on biographies of living people. Also, I don't appreciate you calling my statements ignorant, as they are not. I'm simply trying to help you understand how things work around here. That's good faith. I will be more then happy to continue this discussion with you. Hopefully in the end you can walk away with what a better understanding of what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. -- Elhector (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pierre: The policy is to assume good faith. If you look at my first several replies to you, you will see that I did indeed assume good faith. However, I am under no compulsion to continue to believe you are acting in good faith, should there be evidence to the contrary. You cited a pair of Wikipedia articles as reliable sources, so I logically deduced that you have not read the policies. That's not an assumption of bad faith -- hell, it's not even bad faith I was suggesting.. I was deducing ignorance, which is totally different from assuming bad faith.

Anyway, I grow weary of this argument. Best of luck. ---- Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Another response that intentionally ignores my explanation of why I mentioned the Wikipedia articles! Again from the beginning this has been about the reliable sources of the FBI, CIA, NY Times, USA Today, AP, AFP, and National Archives. Now you guys are making this into a discussion of a mistake I made in mentioning those Wikipedia articles without an explanation of why. When I give you the explanation you accuse me of ignorance. That is not very welcoming. It also is in itself ignorant of the point of my discussion. This is tiresome because you are confused or intentionally ignorant or both. And that is not to be impolite, it is just the fact. So continue to ignore the reliable sources I provided and the fact that you cannot rationally argue how there is no direct link between Bush and the release of Posada Carriles considering the FBI and CIA documents linking him to Orlando Bosch, George H.W. Bush, and the CIA. LOL. Considering the fact that George H.W. Bush pardoned Bosch, who ordered Posada Carriles, and that Jeb Bush is directly connected to Bosch, and that it is George W. Bush who conceived the Bush Doctrine which says that it is illegal for a government to harbor terrorists, you are unbelievably, sublimely, negligent that it is George W. Bush who is responsible for not imprisoning or extraditing Bosch and Posada both of who are terrorists according to FBI and CIA documents. I look forward to your response which will fixate on my mention of the Wikipedia articles. -- Pistolpierre (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the truth is that I would very much like to add the Posada information to the article, but Secret Service agents are in my office right now, with weapons drawn, ordering me to remove any controversial content about the President. It's true. I only was able to say this because they turned their back for a few seconds to torture some detainees. ---- Jaysweet (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)