Talk:Criticism of George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 26. The result of the discussion was speedy keep as inappropriate place to discuss merging documents.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of George W. Bush article.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21/8/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup?

Am I the only one who finds this article very hard to read? It could do with a bit of rewriting, or perhaps a table to make the numbers in polls clearer. DiegoTehMexican 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, theres little comments here and there that justify George without any source (or just 1 source thats usually a partisan site called "fuck islamos" or whatever). This is worst than a Star Wars page as it stands.

[edit] NPOV

I find it hard to believe that there exists no perception of anyone in the world that contains anything positive about Bush. This really needs to have some positive perceptions. --jbamb

  • As much as I dislike Bush and his administration, I must admit that the second part of this article, is a list of items squarely against him. I agree with what is written in them, but surely there are other issues such as Bush stance on abortion, that are perceived positively by a sizeable chunk of people that voted for him. manu3d 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that history will probably be a bit more favorable to Bush, but it seems to me that he's going from one problem to the next in his second term. There has been little to no positive news at all lately, and many people in his own party are trying to distance themselves from the President. DiegoTehMexican 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No it won't. Here's my prediction: A tax-and-spend Republican who has eroded civil liberties while increasing the size of government, he'll be disavowed by left, liberal and conservative historians alike. George Kaplan 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite like this article. Good job.

BMIKESCI 06:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

[edit] Uniter/Divider

"I'm a uniter, not a divider", was Bush's slogan in the 2000 election. My personal view, however, is that Bush has been a very successful divider, dividing the nation over a number of important issues; perhaps more so than any previous president! Does anyone have any opinion or fact that supports or refutes my view? -PJ

  • Which is one position, his approval is near 50%, is there nothing positive that can be said and how does that reconcile with the level of approval? -- Jbamb 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • His approval doesn't seem to be anywhere near 50%, so I have no idea what you're talking about. (unsigned)
At various times his ratings have been far above 50%, especially after 9/11. During those times his public perception was very positive, someone could certainly dig up the reasons for that, since I don't remember what thery were.12.17.189.77 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the most relevant POV criticism is that although Bush's numbers have softened in 2005 and 2006, it has had nothing to with the liberal issues listed herein (NSA, Plame leak, secret prisons). The people who cared about that stuff voted for Kerry. Bush lost support during this period from Republicans for insufficent conservatism (failed social security reform; deficit spending, Harriet Miers nomination,Dubai port deal; lenient immigration proposal). I suspect the folks who starting the article don;t want to face the truth a more cosnervative Bush would be a more popular one

    • I agree 100% with this analysis. (And I was a Kerry voter.)George Kaplan 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Bush sucks. That's all I have to say about that. Hyukan 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the above is not relevant to "uniter/divider". A perfect divider would have half the country approve strongly, and half the country disapprove strongly, so a perfect divider would have an approval rating of 50%. The usual way to do this is by paying no attention to what the other half of the country wants. While this ideal, absolute polarization is not realistic, we do have lots of people saying "Worst president in history, he should be impeached right now", and on the other side, "Shut up, that's treason.". Not that many people seem to feel neutral about him. Thus, he seems to be a fairly successful divider. Granted, he does become a less successful divider whenever he takes actions that almost nobody likes, because that gives people something to agree on.

(There was a little while there when people were united, after 9/11. But I don't suppose Bush wants to take credit for 9/11.) DanielCristofani 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

This page could really be better. It is appropriate that Bush's own page be as NPOV as possible, but this article is specifically about various pov's. It could likely hold more positive povs, but it is also missing the major criticisms of Bush, specifically the Iraq War, specifically the extremely controversial build-up to war. Also I think that that there can be done some extreme re-working of the domestic section above the Hurricane Katrina section. Does there really need to be such an extremly detailed poll account in this section? It doesn't seem to fit. 68.42.64.204 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Possible?

I'm not particularly sure that this article can attain neutrality of President Bush. Don't get me wrong, the guy is less credible than Vladimir Putin, but because public perception is so remarkably poor, I honestly doubt that anyone can make it neutral without being factually inaccurate. ThatSandersKid 09:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)-

The facts, not the way they're presented, can lead to a POV conclusion and still leave the article itself neutral. The fact is, an article on a person's perception in public CAN'T lead to a neutral conclusion unless their perception is neutral. As it stands, Bush's perception was positive at one point, and is now extremely negative. That's not POV, it's merely the way things are. --216.153.178.21 12:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public perception

What is this article actually supposed to be about? Numerous sections (Hurricane Katrina, event screening, Plame affair, and secret prisons) don't mention the public at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it only serves to let a certain political party vent their frustrations with the president. I don't see a Public perception and assessments of Bill Clinton (substitute any other president for Clinton) article anywhere. This article's a joke and represents a big part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Dubc0724 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats vs. Whys

Although this article contains lots of negative opinions about Bush, that's fine, because the negative perceptions are reported in mainstream media sources. So long as this article sticks to "public perception and assessments" of GWB, it's neutral. It falls miserably into POV, however, when it gets into the "whys", because these are subject to much interpretation, which amounts to original research. As such, I am going to eliminate anything from the article which attempts to "connect the dots", but leave in the well-sourced negative polls and assessments of GWB. Morton devonshire 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that we would not be crossing into POV territory if we also included information related to notable and significant researchers and editorials (not DemocraticUnderground or Freep, of course, or even the DNC or RNC themselves) who offer correlations between events/policies and poll data. If the New York Times runs an in-depth investigative article on Bush's poll ratings correlated with surveys and historical data, that should be fine to include and summarize. Captainktainer * Talk 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
To do that would require that we decide these are the events which led to the negative poll results, which would be original research. If the NYT says that these are the reasons, in the same article that states the polls, then that's the NYTimes, not us. But we can't make the correlations ourselves. At all. Morton devonshire 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If the NYTimes references earlier articles or articles from different sources with the polls, that would be acceptable, correct? Captainktainer * Talk 02:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's just keep it simple and not do that, okay? That way we can form a consensus. Morton devonshire 02:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
At least for now I can get behind that, but once the article stabilizes a bit more, I think we should revisit this and allow for more complexity. Captainktainer * Talk 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this page

Sorry, I am a new Wiki user, and don't know my way around here yet but....come on. This articly serves no purpose whatsoever. Polls mean absolutely nothing (Remember Mr. Kerry in 2004? he was ahead in those). I would nominate this page for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.68.205.65 (talk • contribs).

This article was nominated for deletion before, there was no consensus. --Wildnox 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to revisit the issue and work toward a 'consensus'? Dubc0724 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. Bunns USMC 06:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that this is a quite random collection of information, certainly some of the topics deserve a more elaborate explanation than just a sentence in the main GWB article. Any suggestions on how we could deal with that? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd include a section on public perception (maybe gleaned from this article), and make continual references to it throughout the article, when relevant. I don't think there's a need for a separate article. I'll probably put this up for another deletion vote to-night, if for nothing else, to reach a consensus.-Thesocialistesq 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The main GWB article is already too big. It is policy to split up pages when they become to big, which is the reason we have this article. Unless a significant portion is merged to the main GWB (which will not happen I am afraid) I am against an outright deletion of this page. We should look for other solutions in my opinion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
A merger would solve most of the philosophical compunction with the existence of this article, and retain most of the useful information. But I believe that most of the good information in this article already does exist on the main article, see this [1]. I think I'll list the article for deletion now to test the waters and start the discussion in earnest, but if you can think of a better idea, I'll withdraw it. Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical compunction? It is an article that was split from an another article because that one became to big. Nothing philosophical about it. It happens all the time on Wikipedia. That the topic of the new article might not be to everyones liking in not a factor here. My suggestions for this article:

  • Remove all the polls, they are never up-to-date and will be of no interest in the future.
  • Remove most Hurricane stuff, already has an article on its own.
  • Convert this article to a Criticism of George W. Bush article. Sure there will be people who wouldn't like such an article, but GWB has been widely criticised, it would make clear what this article is really about and there are "Critism of..." articles all over Wikipedia. That way, we can even remove some stuff from the main GWB article (which is way to big) and expand this one into a proper, coherent article.

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. What I meant by "philosophical compunction" was that I don't believe Wikipedia should be in the business of writing articles that are simply about public opinion and the public perception of a figure. I think that because of the vague subject matter of articles like this, it invites personal opinion and original research. I'm all for moving it to "Criticism of George W. Bush", because that has been an important social trend that can be discussed and evaluated. Without any objection, I'll move the page in a few hours and start reworking it. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 03:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Go right ahead, I will help you improve it and rework it when I have the time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not make this: Public_Opinion_of_GWB and bring all the poll tracking and popularity tracking and show the synchronization of those with the criticism and praise of GWB during his tenure.--Gkklein 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A general trend in the polls could be helpful, but certainly not week-to-week updates of the latests polls as happened here some time ago. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this page should be deleted. Regardless of whether or not I agree with it, I see no place in an encyclopedia for articles of criticism or support. I don't think either idea is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Many of the so-called facts mentioned on this page will be refuted, altered, or changed in some way in the near future, so I believe this page serves no historical purpose. Encyclopedias should be collections of facts, not collections of opinions, so I think devoting an entire article to opinions is irrational. Leave that to the historians and the bloggers. Fleagle11 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text because of inappropriate language, not because of content dispute.

[edit] Portrayal as a Southron

The anti-Bush media in Northern cities (SF & NY etc except FOX News) has tried to portray the President as "Southern and stupid", while receptive media outlets down South have tried to paint him as a "good old boy". Bush does not in fact fit either perception. Yankee Bushes Elder and Younger, like Pennsylvania Dutch Eisenhower, are of Northern origin and their Texas connections are what some Southern Democrats criticize as Carpetbagger in their components. For instance, large corporations in sectors such as the oil industry are typically part of the Gilded Age establishment began in the Reconstruction era and founded by Northerners, with Scalawag support. Southerners are not typically in control of technological industries, which were the mainstay of the GOP when it started out as a repackaging of the American Whig Party. The Bush family's political and/or economic prominence began in Ohio, the mainstay of Lincolnian Republicans actively hostile to the Solid South. Many conservatives question Bush's commitment to national security as it pertains to Mexico, wondering about Columba Bush's influence on this apparent laxity in handling illegal immigration to the United States. A charge yet refuted, is that Bush uses cultural appropriation (Southern strategy) in order to maintain Southern partisan allegiance. Recently, a Washington insider has come forth and stated that the Bush Administration is not "in bed" with religious conservatism as once thought. Florida congressman Mark Foley's activities, as well as Arizona congressmen Jim Kolbe's, have raised question about the legitimacy of neoconservatism and whether it is indeed feasibly operative or a technique to gain ratings. These events can be interpreted in the light of the Bushes' percieved cold shoulder to Zell Miller's Jacksonian keynote speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Numbers of former Democrats support Bush because they would not support Kerry, especially with the culture war rhetorics of both Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich ever since the Clinton Administration. Bush's declared reverence for Reagan has some Conservatives wondering what is so "conservative" about a Hollywood star, especially since Hollywood is percieved as anti-American. They wonder why the GOP that Joseph McCarthy identified with would court Hollywood as representative of their party.

Let's see how to reintegrate the text. Hasbro 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I suggest you find and supply us with sources backing up all the statements in the paragraph. That would help a lot in judging and possibly rewriting this text. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torture

President bush has stated that "We do not torture," [2]. Yet, many people are concerned about the truth of this statement, because the pentagon says that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat to security [3], and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop all attempts at limiting torture [4]. Furthermore many people are disturbed by the Bush Administration's use of Extraordinary rendition, where many individuals who are only claimed to be supporting terrorist organizations are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight. [5] The Bush Administrations clear lack of high ranking military or civilian arrests on the charges of homicide and crimes against humanity have spurred distrust in the administration's word when only low ranking "puppets" are being arrested and sentenced to extremely short prison terms of no more than a few months. [6]

The Bush administrations connections to torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.

Post counterarguments, criticisms, and edits or forever hold your peace. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 03:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ANONYMOUS COWARDxCODE inserted this in the global views section of the article and I have removed it. This article is about public perceptions of Bush. In the paragraph above, the only mentions of public perceptions are vague references to things that "many people" believe or are concerned about and a passive voice reference to "spurring distrust". To the extent that the paragraph is subject appropriate to this article, it is unsupported by sources, and so violates WP:V. People, myself included, may indeed by outraged by the possibility that their government is using torture as an interrogation technique, but statements about their opinions must be properly sourced to be included in WP.--Kchase T 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On 07:12, 2 November 2006 User:Captainktainer reverted these comments from Talk:Criticism of George W. Bush with this summary explanation: "(I have any number of profanities to spew in the President's direction, and in the direction of those who voted for that travesty, but this is *NOT* the place for that discussion)"

President bush has stated that "We do not torture,"[7]. Yet, many people [8] [9] [10] [11] are concerned about the truth of this and other statements, partly because the pentagon says that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat to security [12], and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop all attempts at limiting torture [13], including legislation by President Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by the McCain Detainee Amendment. Furthermore many people [14] [15] [16] are outraged by the Bush Administration's use of Extraordinary rendition, where individuals are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight. [17]
The Bush administrations connections to torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.
Please post counterarguments, criticisms, and edits. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again please do not spuriously remove my cited contributions, especially on the basis that it contains profanities which do not exist. If you find factual errors point them out for me to remove, if you find questionable material that requires additional clarification then by all means revert my additions to *the main article*, and state your reasons. If you find gross grammatical mistakes then fell free to edit them (I believe that is how wikipedia is designed to work, those who are not good at English still have the right to communicate there beliefs with the rest of the world.) I am not being unfair in my requests, I am willing to hear all complaints, but I will not allow you to dismiss my contributions with out a reason. This is *JUST* the place for discussing *criticism* of George W. Bush and his association with others. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I earlier removed this section from the article because it violated WP:V. Even with more sources (which I haven't actually looked at yet) it still violates one of our core policies, WP:NPOV, by not also containing the administration's responses to these torture accusations. In my opinion, it needs that information to be neutral.--Kchase T 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Q And the Senate is moving to pass a law that would affirm, confirm, and enforce that commitment. Does the administration want the CIA exempted from that law?

MR. McCLELLAN: And we've stated our views on that amendment. The House passed a different version of the Department of Defense spending legislation. The Senate included some language on that. We'll be working with congressional leaders as they move forward to pass that legislation.

Q I don't get it. Is that a yes or a no?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into discussions that we're having with congressional leaders about how to move forward on the legislation.

Q You've already said the President is going to veto anything that would exempt us from torture. You have -- this White House demeans --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not correct, that's --

Q -- you demean all Americans when you support torture. And your answer is so fuzzy --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, our answer is very clear, and that's flat-out wrong what you're suggesting, because this President has made it very clear what our policy is --

Q Didn't you say that he would veto any part of that legislation of defense spending?

MR. McCLELLAN: We did express our views on that legislation, but it is not the way you characterized it, because there are laws and treaty obligations that are on the books. We adhere to those laws and treaty obligations.

Q No, you don't. You are supporting torture.

MR. McCLELLAN: You are wrong. This is a -- the United States is a country that --

Q Is the story in the paper today wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- believes in adhering to our laws and our values. And we do. And this President believes in abiding by our laws and our treaty obligations.

Q Why do we keep reading about torture then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you'll let me respond, I will. The President has made it very clear that he does not condone torture, nor would he ever authorize the use of torture --

Q Condone it, but does he allow it?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and our policy is to comply with our laws and our treaty obligations. That's what we expect everyone to do. If there are ever instances of wrongdoing, we investigate and we follow through and hold people accountable.

[18]

Given the administrations clear lack of response to the President's threat to veto anti-torture legislation, I can't include it in the article, if you or anyone else would like to find an official response to Bush's views that can be included in wikipedia, then please do so, but I am not going to spend days (perhaps if I were a journalist, but I am going to leave this issue for other members of the community to enlighten me as to what I am unaware) looking for an acceptable quote of what the administration may or may not of said in response to their own views just to uphold npov. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current revision

President bush has stated that "We do not torture,"[19]. Yet, many people [20] [21] [22] [23] are concerned about the truth of this and other statements, partly because the pentagon says that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat to security [24], and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop all attempts at limiting torture [25], including legislation by President Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by the McCain Detainee Amendment. Furthermore many people [26] [27] [28] are outraged by the Bush Administration's use of Extraordinary rendition, where individuals are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight. Bush defends this practice on the basis that

[...] the United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that.

[29] [30]

The Bush administrations connections to torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.

Please post counterarguments, criticisms, and edits. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 'Gabriel over the White House' inclusion irrelevent

Deleted the "See Also - Gabriel over the White House" as it was a over half-century old film with absolutely no connection to George W. Bush. Just because some critics have compared him to the main character doesn't make it worthwhile to add. If it was, we'd have to add every reference to villains or propaganda figures people have brought up in connection to a president. Edders 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair did not question Bush's intellect...

If the article is read, it clearly states that a source, not Tony Blair himself, questioned the Bush's intellect. This clearly needs to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.158.143 (talk • contribs). 31 Oct 2006

Sentence rephrased. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush in Popular Culture

Love him or hate him, there has been alot of stuff about Bush in popular culture, so I'm adding a section on it. I'll try to make it neutral as possible, although the stuff I'll mention is mostly negative on him. If anyone has anything positive to say for him, feel free to add it. (Justinboden86 01:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] merger proposals

theProject recently proposed merging this article into the main GWB article. I'm not too keen on the proposal, as this article started as a daughter article split off from that one (it's changed quite a bit since then, including a rename). However, I've got another proposal. Much of this article is polling information reflecting domestic and foreign public opinion of Bush. To me, such info belongs in the new Public perception of George W. Bush article. Once the relevant opinion polling parts of this article are moved, the remainder (secs. 1.1 and 1.4 and the intro) is quite small. That small amount could be more readily merged into the main George W. Bush article, leaving this as a redirect to preserve edit history. This article isn't a proper "Criticism" article; for example, it doesn't even have a section on the Iraq War, which is probably the biggest criticism of Bush. Your thoughts?--Kchase T 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement by Kchase. The GWB article is already too long and this article was started while attempting to decrease that size (daughter article). To merge it back into the GWB article just wouldn't make much sense; however, merging this article with Public perception of George W. Bush seems like a good idea. Both articles are about the same general topic anyway. I support a merge with Public perception of George W. Bush. -- AuburnPilottalk 19:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I second that, as the guy who proposed nominating the original merger, mainly because I didn't know about Public perception of George W. Bush (it seems to have been created mere days ago, and appears to have been improperly split). Right now, this whole thing is a mess. We have Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush which redirects to Criticism of George W. Bush. We also have another article called Public perception of George W. Bush, which is split off from George W. Bush. My two biggest concerns are that 1) there is no article titled "Criticism ..." because that is inherently a POV fork title -- any merger that accomplishes this end I'll support, and 2) that the split be done properly (with GFDL) attribution. I'm not too knowledgeable on the specifics of the history of this whole mess, so I'll leave it up to someone else to figure out how to deal with these things. But the POV fork must go. theProject 19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The folks at George W. Bush support the POV fork, however they have recently removed nearly all references to it. I am in the process of understanding why this change was supported. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you noticed that already. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"The folks ... support the POV fork" -- I understand this, but NPOV is not negotiable. POV forks go directly against Wikipedia policy, and I'm of the opinion that no amount of "consensus" should allow for a violation of NPOV. It's paramount that we approach Wikipedia policy here without political bias. theProject
It's not a POV fork. The original point that theProject made was that the retitling may lead to a POV fork. No one is advocating a POV fork. When this article was split off the main GWB article, it was titled differently, and since retitling, it has changed little.--Kchase T 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'd suggest renaming it pronto. The current title is very suggestive of a POV fork. :-) theProject 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush, and Criticism of the George W. Bush administration on the media need to all be merged together. I suggest using the title Public perception and criticism of George W. Bush if it is to be a separate article, or merge everything back into George W. Bush. --- RockMFR 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop! No! Wait! Rather than merge this article into another or alter its scope yet again, I think we should sit down and work on it, removing irrelevant polling statistics and merging in important content from the more dissolute Criticism of the George W. Bush administration on the media and Public perception of George W. Bush articles, in accordance with other Criticism of... articles. A change along these lines was resolved before I moved this article to its present location, and I'd invite you to help in the rewriting. As for the idea that this is a "POV fork", I must say most emphatically that it isn't and that it won't be. It isn't because no-one is presently trying to get around the rules or insert POV content. It won't be because articles like this are not doomed to represent one POV. There are many other Criticism of... articles on Wikipedia that are perfectly respectable spinouts of other articles. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm attempting to have merged most of those other articles. "Criticism of ..." titles are very dangerous and should be avoided on Wikipedia with utmost diligence. Again, the title is extremely suggestive of and conducive to a POV fork. theProject 07:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I understand that "Criticism of..." titles can be used for POV forking, and that there must be an added scrutiny of these articles. I don't believe that all "Criticism of..." articles are necessarily POV forks, however, nor that they should be summarily merged or deleted. Criticism of some things is notable and deserving of an article in and of itself. This article especially has a history, and I am willing to personally commit to revamping it if this article is let alone, and the new perception article and the media criticism article are merged into it. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you two agree about the title more than you think. I think we can also reach agreement on what to do with the content here. Since you want to remove these "irrelevant polling statistics", what's wrong with moving them to another article (the one I suggested) which is still explicitly about public opinion of Bush? That seems like the best option here. As to a criticism article, I think Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment is a more thorough treatment of the criticisms lobbed at the Bush Administration. But frankly, a single article on this subject seems woefully inadequate. It would be far better (as already seems to be the dominant trend) to put criticism in articles for each topic (Hurricane Katrina, Iraq War, etc.). Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq is a good example of such a section that was spun out.--Kchase T 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I agree, one single article is woefully inadequate. What if this article was revamped to include criticisms on the topics you listed above, and used as a sort of a central organizing page for all of these criticisms? For instance, the article could have a section on the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, and the 2000 election, integrating and elaborating on content from those pages and linking to them. I'm not as sure about keeping brand new the public perception article, but if there were to be a place for these intricate polling numbers, that would be it. If we go through with these changes, I'd be glad to move that content to that page. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, I have no objections to merging if it makes sense, but in the past there was a public perception of... article that combined all sorts of random facts, without clear link between them. In that case, seperate articles documenting for example polls, the impeachment lobbies and public criticism are way preferred. We should, also not be afraid afraid of using the word Criticism (either as a title or section). The word in itself it absolutely not POV, neither is legitimate use of it. There has been a lot of criticism of GWB (evidenced by a lot of references in the article) and therefore it makes sense to use the word. The fact that such an article might lead to a POV fork is not a good reason not use it. If that's what the article is about, that's would the article should be called. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

I think we have consensus, but I proposed the merger, so I'd like someone else to check this.

  • Favoring: kchase02 (as proposer), AuburnPilot, theProject
  • Alternate, "public perceptions and criticisms of GWB" favored by RockMFR
  • Alternate, moving polling info here, but leaving the remainder of this article alone, favored by the Socialestesq
  • No clear opinion:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE

So a 4-1 consensus to move the polling, but a spirited debate above about whether to keep a "Criticism of" article. I'm disinclined to do anything with the remaineder of the article until that debate is more resolved. However, I think we're ready to move the polling info.--Kchase T 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means. If I've got the time, I'll move the polling data to-night.-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's moved. Now to get it sorted...--Kchase T 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Thank-you. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 06:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Person of the Year

I don't see what TIME naming Bush "Person of the Year" in 2000 and 2004 has to do with criticism of the man. 71.203.209.0 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'WMD Joke Controversy'

I am just starting to review the plethora of Bush articles. Could any of you who are familiar with them tell me if there is any mention of the 'WMD Joke Controversy' from the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner?

This one:

"Family of Slain Soldier Calls Bush WMD Jokes "Disgraceful""
-snip-
"But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing."
"George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country.""

Thanks! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nucular

According to the citation used only Eisenhower used the same pronunciation as George W. Bush not any of the others listed. So I belive the others should be taken off. Unless another citation cane be found specifically stating the other Presidents listed. Gang14 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   
Talk:Criticism of George W. Bush
 But it isn't always easy to tell whether an error is a typo or a thinko. Take the pronunciation of nuclear as "nucular." That one has been getting on people's nerves since Eisenhower made the mispronunciation famous in the 1950's. In Woody Allen's 1989 film Crimes and Misdemeanors, the Mia Farrow character says she could never fall for any man who says "nucular." That would have ruled out not just Dubya, but Bill Clinton, who said the word right only about half the time. (President Carter had his own way of saying the word, as "newkeeuh," but that probably had more to do with his Georgia accent than his ignorance of English spelling.
   
Talk:Criticism of George W. Bush

Going Nucular by Geoff Nunberg

I could possibly see the justification for removing Jimmy Carter, but not the others. AuburnPilottalk 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, on further reading of the article, I don't even see Kennedy mentioned. Ford is only mentioned in passing...I'd say to meet the citation's claims, Kennedy and Ford should be removed. The sentence should also be reworded to ID Jimmy's pronunciation as southern. AuburnPilottalk 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision underway

I've copied this article to my userpage and I'm working on making the article more substantive. I should get some sections added to this article over the weekend. Feel free to edit the userpage version. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECriticism_of_George_W._Bush_48a3.html"