Talk:Criticism of George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of George W. Bush article.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
  • Speedy Keep (closed for inappropriate discussion), November 26, 2006, see discussion.
  • Keep (no consensus), August 21, 2006, see discussion.

Contents

[edit] Maby we should include that hes a psychopath

Perfect example of a psychopath 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.
yeah and there was stuff that quoted urban legend as fact for example they quoted this urban legend http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp as fact, it may be amusing but has no place in a factual article Cryo921 06:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[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 agree. Bush will NOT be looked on favourably by future generations. And of course a lot of this is squarely against him, look at the title of the article!A gx7 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite like this article. Good job.

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

When similar pages related to Bill Clinton and Al Gore are titled "...Controversies" and this page is "Criticisms" how can anyone claim NPOV? Change the page title to "George W. Bush Controversies" and you start to have parity. 159.247.2.8 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[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)
This article, if anything, is apologetic - most every criticism of Bush is followed by an "other presidents did the same too" phrase, complete with links to those named presidents. Comparison does not make fact, but it does transform the context of the facts presented. I find this sort of comparison un-objective and highly suspect - I suggest you remove such comparisons within the text body, and instead open a specific "comparitive study" section for a real objective view of how Bush compares to preceding US presidents - an on the level comparison: save the cherrypicking please! THEPROMENADER 06:52, 1 June 2007 (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)

I think you are getting two articles mixed up, Public perceptions of George Bush and Criticisms of George Bush. The public perceptions article is a well-referenced discussion of Bush's presidency in relation to polling data and other measures of public perception. The criticisms page is a look at the numerous failures and questionable decisions of the George Bush presidency. The reason why there may not be such a page for Bill Clinton is, simply put, he didn't con the public about mushroom clouds or start an unnecessary war, then screw it up in umpteen ways, he didn't try to gut health and environmental regulations, he didn't preside over a ballooning of the federal debt to unprecedented levels, he didn't pretend that tax cuts and lack of regulatory oversight of financial markets are the only valid economic policies, he didn't ignore a burgeoning natural disaster when there was still time to do something about it, he didn't walk away from Kyoto and suppress government scientists from speaking out on global warming, he didn't pretend that, in the face of mounting, unequivocal evidence of the peril of global warming, still maintain that voluntary reductions and the normal progression in efficiency of technologies would solve the problem. He didn't sit reading to third graders for seven minutes after he was told, "the United States is under attack." And, by any measure, Bill Clinton's presidency was full of faults. He just didn't have nearly as problematic a presidency, in terms of actions and policy, as George W. Bush.

Any of these statements is easily verified and is not in any way biased against George W. Bush, in terms of "not presenting the other side". They are just the facts. I guess that's the problem with Wikipedia: sometimes the truth is not fair and balanced with regards to your favorite politician. In reality, though, that's your problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdurbin (talk • contribs) 08:51, 24 April 2008 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
It can be a fact that someone holds an opinion.--A gx7 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This page should not exist. I understand that people have put a great deal of work into it but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to have a place to vent your frustrations with the President. There are no other pages like this about any other notable figures and the lack of neutrality of the article cannot be disputed.--[[Dough007 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)]]07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Neutrality tag removed. 1) This is a year-old debate section, please start a new section to discuss and begin a neutrality debate before posting a tag. 2) Your only argument is plainly incorrect, as Wikipedia has dozens of such criticism articles. Do a Search for "Criticism of". Religions and corporations come in first for the most part; Muhammad is the first person whose criticism page turns up, George W. Bush the first living person, followed by Noam Chomsky, Tony Blair, Ghandi, and many others. —Yamara ✉ 14:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppose you are right about there being other criticism pages for people. I was too quick to post the neutrality tag. My problem is that this page reads like a political message board in some areas
and is full of weasel words and general contributers opinions.  The other pages are written in a more professional manner and based on facts.  I have read the previous comments that,"It can be a fact that someone holds an opinion", but wonder if that warrants a whole page based on what some columnist in a newspaper thinks about the President.  Either way, I'm moving on and will leave it alone.Dough007 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree completely; this page serves no neutral, intellectual purpose. The neutrality is a joke, and section after section is poorly written (particularly the section on hostility toward the poor). I think we as a community can do better than this.... 207.192.193.97 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2008 (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.--Chaser 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.--Chaser 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 and governments [20][21][22] don't see it that way and have staged several protests[23][24][25][26]. These sentiments are partly because of the pentagon's determination that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat [27], and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop attempts at limiting torture [28], including legislation by President Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by the McCain Detainee Amendment. Furthermore many people [29] [30] [31] 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.

[32] [33]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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))

He was voted 8th on a programme on TV's 100 best comedy moments in the UK.

[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?--Chaser T 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement by Chaser. 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.--Chaser 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.--Chaser 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: Chaser (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.--Chaser 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...--Chaser 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)

I concur. This is highly suspect.A gx7 05:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is "highly suspect". Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but even in an article about criticism, WP:NPOV still applies. More specifically, the undue weight section of NPOV which reads: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." TIME's person of the year is the man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." In other words, it could be criticism or it could be praise. AuburnPilottalk 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This is from the Person of the Year article:

"There was a massive public backlash in the United States after Time named Ayatollah Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979.[citation needed] Since then, Time has generally shied away from choosing candidates who are extremely unpopular with a majority of people for crimes they've commited. Time's Person of the Year 2001—in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks — was New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It was thought that the rules of selection ("the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news") made the obvious choice Osama bin Laden.[citation needed] Previous choices such as Adolf Hitler were cited to demonstrate that Person of the Year did not necessarily mean "best human being of the year." The issue which declared Rudolph Giuliani as Person of the Year included an article that mentioned Time's earlier decision to make Ayatollah Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979 and the 1999 rejection of Hitler as "Person of the Century." The article seemed to imply that Osama bin Laden was a stronger candidate than Giuliani for Person of the Year and Hitler was a stronger candidate than Albert Einstein for Person of the Century, but they were not ultimately selected due to what the magazine described as their "negative" influence on history.

and

"In recent years, the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too U.S.-centered, which is a departure from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. Until Bono received the shared title in 2005, Time had gone over a decade without recognizing a non-American individual. A breakdown by nationality also shows that more than a half of the people who have ever been selected for the title have been Americans. Furthermore incumbent US Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were designated Men of the Year in the years of the election that led them to the high office in the following year, without them necessarily having been influential in any other way at the time."

It may be the official stance of Time that the award is not necessarily an honour, but as you can see there is clear bias in favour of popular and American candidates.

This artcle is purely about Criticism of George W. Bush. The title says so. These days the Person of the Year award does not have enough to do with criticism to include it in the article.A gx7 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the information presented above shows "a clear bias" of American candidates. Four of the Americans you mentioned were sitting Presidents and during their reigns each of the four were the most powerful person on Earth, with more capacity and power than anyone else to influence world events.

[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)

“ 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. ”

Going Nucular by Geoff Nunberg

would that mean That Carter tried to serve on a "newkeeuh" submarine. do we even need to mention anyone but bush in this article or maybe we should just say other presidents have made the same error Cryo921 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

When do you think you'll be putting it back? I wanna make some minor changes but don't feel like doing it twice :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and change the main article. I'm primarily using the one on my userpage to outline the article, and I shouldn't disturb any minor changes you make. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelectual capacity and religious belief

I feel there should be some mention of Bush's strong religious beliefs in this article, which have been criticised by atheists such as Richard Dawkins. There is also the question of how it relates to his mental capacity - his beliefs seem to be quite simplistic. He genuinely seems to believe in absolute good and evil as tangible forces, suggesting a lack of coherant comprehension of the world. Mojo-chan 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

ehhhhhh...I don't think that linking his religious belief with his intellectual capacity would be helpful. A mention of criticism of his black-and-white/Evangelical Christian/neoconservative world view might fit in, though. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Surely though, it is legitimate to examine his beleifs and how they affect his actions and decisions. For example, some argue that he tends to simplify things into a good/evil stand-off, when in fact the situation is more complex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mojo-chan (talk • contribs) 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

How exactly was the "estimation" of Bush's IQ made? Did he take a test? Also, how is the correlation between SAT score and IQ measured? One last question, and this may have been different when Bush took the test, but everyone I knew had an SAT score that rounded off to 10, how did Bush receive a 566 in Math? The IQ section seems very flimsy. To present it as an example of criticism is one thing, but the article seems to lend weight to the findings of these studies that seem highly suspect.

[edit] Missing info

We are missing criticisms on the following:

I would agree with the above, although some of these could be grouped together. In addition:

  • Insistence on loyalty. There is consistent evidence that the loyalty of his underlings is more important than honest opinion or dissention. Examples: exclusion of scientific evidence, ignoring contrary evidence prior to the Iraq invasion, "I'm the decider," firing of prosecutors and other staff who did not tow the party line.
  • Non-secular policies and faith-based initiatives.
  • An attack on science.
  • Ability to work with others. His 2000 campaign made a big deal out of his ability as Governor to work with the Democrats in the Texas Legislature. He used the phrase, "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Yet as President, he became a polarizing figure and made few efforts to work with his opponents.
  • Some of his actions may very well be unconstitutional: suspension of habeus corpus, illegal wiretapping, and signing statements to name a few.
  • Policies that favor multinational corporations over small businesses and labor.
  • Policies that favor outsourcing jobs to other countries.

71.86.223.176 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Al Gore is verboten

While this article is deemed acceptable, leftists feel the Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions page should be deleted. Feel free to chime in on the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions--Jayzel 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing polarization and politics. Al Gore had two articles: "criticisms ans misconceptions" and "controversies". Now he has one, like Bush does here.--Jackbirdsong 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IQ derived from SAT scores

I don't think that we can really rely on SAT scores to figure out a person's intellect. Prep schools spend four years continuously preparing students to take the SATs, so it's only natural that those students would have high scores. I know this from personal experience and also from professors who evaluated the system. Bush went to a prep school, so since he had so much preparation for the SATs, the derived IQ could just be artificially inflated. I thought I'd add it in the article, but I don't want to because I'm sure I'll get at least thirty angry messages from people who don't agree.J.J. Bustamante 03:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflating Bush's SAT score with his IQ is wrong. There is a difference between competence and intelligence. I think Bush's biggest problem is his incomptenece at his job, as evidenced in the federal response to Katrina, the US Attorney firing scandal, the mismanagement of the Iraq war, the domestic spying program under the patriot act, just to name a few. These events all point to a president who is either mentally detached or just a liar who 'plays dumb' (like when he said no one could predict the Levys in New Orleans would be breached, then hours later there is a footage from a videoconference where Bush is told that they DO expect the Levys to be breached, did he honestly 'not recall' that meeting or did he lie?) I think these attacks on Bush's intelligence seem petty and take away from the real crticisms of his incompetence in a leadership role.
I agree that the use of an SAT score to predict IQ is questionable. SAT scores explain less than 60% of the variance in IQ.. and I don't know that the sources cited are credible. Bush's transcript is sef-published, which seems to me not to meet Wikipedia standards for verifiablity. There is no source cited for Clinton's IQ. St. Cloud Times does not verifly claim that Bush's official IQ data are not available. Dr.enh 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other incidents targeted by the press (formerly knows as "Strange behavior")

I've removed the section titled "strange behavior" that used its only reliable source to prove a kiss and back rub actually happened. The rest was nothing more than original research backed up by opinion and conjecture. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News, San Fransisco Chronicle, and Richmond Times Dispatch all mainstream newspapers, and as such all seem to me to comply with Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources. I would argue that the Huffington Post article cited is also reliable, but I can see how a valid opposing article could be made. The San Francicso Chronicle and Richmond Times Dispatch sources cited are not opinion articles. Is there any Wikipedia policy against citing the factual assertions made in the Dallas Morning News opinion piece? If so, please direct me to the appropriate policy, and I will look for a source that complies with the policy. The YouTube link is orignial video of the event described in the San Francisco Chronicle; I thought "a picture is worth a thousand words," but if Wikipedia is deemed an unreliable source, I have no objections to that reference being deleted. Dr.enh 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the section is that a couple of incidents, without any relationship between them, are grouped together under an arbitrary heading "Strange behavior". That is, in my opinion, original research, and should not be included, in this manner at least, in the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) and Mbc362. You simply cannot draw conclusion like this. It is original research. Who says it's "strange behavior"? Your source for the kiss and other "behaviors" simply state they occurred. This is utterly ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The Strange Behavior section is not original research. The section is exclusively based on a summary of earlier publications (with references) on Bush’s behavior. All references articles describe the behavior as strange, inappropriate, or possibly indicative of poor mental health.
I didn't even bother looking at the sources - my problem is with the material itself. You took unrelated, extremely minor quirks and basically tried to create a personality disorder out of if. None of the things you listed are valid criticisms of Bush. I mean, "kissing a female conductor on the top of her head" - What the hell does that have to do with anything? Giving undue weight to this type of crap is not NPOV.--Mbc362 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, and the fact that the user has now readded the material is beyond. How this could be considered acceptable in any stretch of the imagination is ridiculous. The text actually links "unwanted back rub" to the article on sexual harassment. This is a serious violation of WP:BLP and now borders on libel. - auburnpilot talk 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As evidenced by the references, mainstream newspapers have criticized Bush for his odd or inappropriate behavior. Including such criticisms on this criticisms page is not giving them undue attention, because I make no claim that they are majority views. I have modified the section to stick extremely closely to statements made in my references. If you believe that anything I have written is not backed up by the referenced source, or that the referenced source is not reliable, then please tell me which statement or reference is problematic, and why.
Where to begin? The first source you provide only mentions the text in passing (and only goes so far as to say his friends were "shocked," it doesn't even call the actions shocking), the second source references another website, which is of questionable reliability/neutrality. The third source specifically says that "the incident didn't get a lot of play on major TV media" and basically implies its an internet phenom. The last simply shows that the incident did in fact happen. This is a clear violation of undue weight if I ever saw one. No, you have not addressed my concerns.--Mbc362 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me just deal with the massage for now: the threshold for reliability is not "a lot of play on major [US] TV media, but mention in a mainstream publication, such as the SF Chronicle and the major European newspapers (Guardian, Bild) linked to from the Chronicle reference. There is a reference in the LA times, etc.

I'd say that your reasoning for not including it is an example of bias in favor of major American television networks and against mainstream print and non-American media. Your thoughts? Dr.enh 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The event was filmed by Russian TV because they were filming the meeting, they weren't specifically looking for embarrassing things Bush has done. All of the english sources you've just listed simply mention the event in passing. They don't even criticize Bush for it. The german source currently has "Ihr Neuer war Porno-Star" as the main headline on its frontpage. RS? Nope. This page is not a list of every thing Bush has done wrong. It is to describe the major points of criticism he has received throughout his life. You have still failed to show how an act of "beating his chest" or giving the german chancellor an unwanted neck rub are significant points of criticism. You can accuse me of bias all you want but its not going to give any more credence to your claims. --Mbc362 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Each of these sources describes the event happened yes, but none of them calls it "strange behavior". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the 'appelation question' below. THEPROMENADER 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The section has its place here, but it has to be rewritten from an objective point of view: our role here is to document. Bush has shown a lot of 'strange behaviour', but that is a title a little to vague for an objective article - what is 'strange'? Perhaps change it to something like 'un-presidential behaviour' or 'behaviour targeted by the press' - the Merkel shoulder-rub is a perfect example of that. Another more recent example is Bush telling the mothers of fallen soldiers who had just recieved a commemorative coin honoring their losses "don't sell it on eBay". The list is long and can be found everywhere in the mainstream press, so there should be no problem with this section if its raison d'être is clear and complete with mainstream sources. THEPROMENADER 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree that such a section belongs here. Who gets to determine what is "strange" or "un-presidential"? The problem is that the very attempt at determining what constitutes "strange" and "un-presidential" behavior is 1) original research and 2) a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, you see the eBay comment as "strange" whereas I see it as typical for Bush's personality/sense of humor. That's the problem; such a section could never be included and not violate our policies. - auburnpilot talk 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Then call it 'behaviour targeted by the press' or somthing of the like. If a certain 'behaviour' or event - no matter what adjective you tack to it - was (whatever) enough to be documented everywhere in mainstream media, then it most certainly has its place here. THEPROMENADER 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, while it could be argued that labelling the behavior "strange" is subjective, the section should be renamed instead of completely removed. - Wikdot 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I've rewritten the section from an objective point of view - 'behaviour widely published by the press' - and reinstated it. Please expand. THEPROMENADER 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the discussion on what constitutes appropriate evidence for a "Criticism of..." page. I am somewhat unclear because criticism is, by definition, a subjective opinion. Hence, I am also unclear what is meant by an “objective point of view” on a page entitled, “Criticism of…” Nonetheless, I appreciate the revisions that have been made.
I would propose that the threshold of evidence for something to be stated on a “Criticism of …” page is 1) that a reliable source has published that the action occurred, and 2) that a previously published reliable source has published that the action was criticisized (or defended). Without Condition (2), the criticism (or defense) would be original research. This seems to be the same threshold of evidence used in the “September 11, 2001 attacks” section. Does anyone disagree with these criteria for evidence? If so, what would be more appropriate criteria?
Back to the Merkel incident. The numerous examples I cited above demonstrate that the shoulder rub happened [Criterion (1)]. The referenced page A-1 article in the San Francisco Chronicle establishes that the action was criticized [Criterion (2)]: “it was just one of the Bush G-8 gaffes that garnered considerable space in the blogosphere”; “But it was the massage for Merkel -- notably the only female at the G-8 table -- which earned Bush the title of "Groper in Chief" on some Web sites”; One German tabloid, BILD-Zeitung, which posted the link to the video and headlined it: ‘Bush: Love Attack on Merkel!’"; “his true lack of intelligence and emotional maturity surfaces for all to see”; “commentator and author Steve Young's blog on the Huffington Post Web site says Bush looks like the "Lounge Lizard in Chief -- so he advises Democrats to seize the moment and make use of "the irony of a president who's supposed to represent our best, giving the Chancellor of Germany an inappropriate and unrequested backrub.”; “Even some veteran White House insiders say the incident is a hair-raiser. "I mean, did Reagan do that to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher? He's not giving massages to (Russian President Vladimir) Putin -- and he's the one who thinks he has a great relationship with Putin," said Martha Whetstone, former political director for the Northern California Democratic National Committee”; “Leaders should not act that way.; “Americans can "add it to the long list of embarrassing moments for our president”; etc. Dr.enh 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There's not need to go to such length to justify this article's presence and purpose, and there's no risk of being led into the details by apologists if one retains an objective and factual sum of evidence - the big picture. Esssentialy, you are right: criticising someone in first person in an article is not the same as constituting the fact of a widespread tendency of criticism.
Forget the "original research" claim though, as it is only a (strawman) distraction impossible to apply to this argument - anyone is perfectly capable of finding a selective set of sources to make an article that in sum will be a criticism, and it will not be original research, so we can even argue to the contrary - to the end of the earth. Wiki's "original research" is ill-defined and ill-used IMHO - because if anything is factual. already published and sourced, it's not.Let's not digress.
So what we have here is an article on a president that has accumulated so much critical press and negative polls that it has split into an article of its own. This is only normal for Wiki. Still, I think that it should be rewritten into a more "attested criticism" form. Please see below. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article reworking?

May I suggest that this article be rewritten into categories, rather than events? For example, Iraq is only one reason for Bush criticism - perhaps group all this (with some other criticisms about his administration's dealings with other countries) under "foreign policy"? "Torture" could perhaps go under "civil rights" with other well-documented anti-constitutional efforts (wiretapping, Plame, firing of district attorneys, etc). "Katrina" could go under "domestic policy" with other well-documented cases where national disasters turned catastrophe because of incompetent Bush-assigned administrators - perhaps health care could go there too. A reference to the Rolling Stone article "Worst President Ever" would be a great lead-in to this article, and provide you with several sources in the bargain. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposed reorganization would make the article more useful. I also suggest that the paragraphs on Bush's linguistic errors, mispronounciations, and misuse of words do not belong under the heading of intellectual capacity. Public speaking is a skill separate from intelligence. Dr.enh 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps we can start by grouping the existing sections into "foreign policy" (wars, diplomacy), "domestic policy" (health care, security)... perhaps a "character" section (questioned happenings, intelligence, noted linguistic foibles)... why not a "career" section (service record, failed enterprises)... press criticism on all of the above has been widespread, but at least organised in this way it will be coherent. Thoughts? THEPROMENADER 09:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, but I would call the third section something like, "Personal Characteristics," because "Character" does not seem broad enough to include intelligence and linguistic foibles. Dr.enh 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind. Rather than organizing the article by types of issue (e.g. domestic, foreign, etc.), how about organizing it by type of criticism? For example, (1) Bush is unintelligent and/or incompetent; (2) the Bush administration places ideology over reality, e.g., Greg Theilmann's charge of the use of "faith-based intelligence"; and (3) "Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy."[1] --Dr.enh 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps the title of the article should be changed from "Criticism of George W. Bush" to "Criticism of the George W. Bush Administration"? --Dr.enh 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you for the title change, but please be careful with the category titles: we are here to present facts as they are (in proportions reflecting the actual status quo), and it is for the reader to make his conclusion... I think it would be more objective to single out areas of influence (as I suggested) and, within those, work down to the details. For example "faith based initiatives" is local policy... part of education?
I'm sorry to say that criticism of this president is so widespread that it covers most every category - but our job here is to report other people's reporting, not do reporting of our own. I hope you see my point. THEPROMENADER 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's create a "Criticism of the George W. Bush Administration" page and move the domestic policy and foreign policy to it. We could leave the personal characteristics (questioned happenings, intelligence, noted linguistic foibles) on the "Criticism of George W. Bush" page and add a career section. Perhaps each page should be linked to the other. Agreed? --Dr.enh 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great, yes. I do think that one day the two pages will be merged again... but you're right in stating that the Bush administration is not Bush. One article, pointed criticism on the person, another pointed criticism on the administration as a whole - yes, fine. Let's keep them objective and third-person - no opinionated 'comparitive studies' such as this article already has! I move that we remove these. For now, go ahead with the move - you don't need my approval : ) Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the reorganization into personal criticisms and criticisms of his administration but as the two are deeply intertwined, maybe it would be better to leave it as part of the same page. Leaving the current page with just criticisms of his intellectual capacity and "odd" behavior would make it seem shallow, when in fact much of the actual criticism of Mr. Bush is due to the actions his administration has taken which he implicitly or explicitly approved of. Wikdot 04:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "higher scores than"

"It should be noted that Bush had better grades in college than either Al Gore (who still did graduate cum laude, contrary to Bush),[44] or John Kerry."

I have reservations about this phrase, because even its sources aren't clear - they are comparative studies that themselves aren't clear ('grades as an undergraduate' - what about other years, final scores at graduation?) - one cannot take one instance of higher grades and present it as an argument for all-round intelligence. Anyhow, this article is not a Bush apology; it is about published material critical of Bush. We should either complete this section with global and comprehensive statistics, or we should remove it. THEPROMENADER 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual and Psychological...

I'm sorry to say, but this almost entire section is speculative bunk. No Bush IQ score has ever been published to date, and the "studies" mentioned (including one requiring a paid registration - no good here) base their 'reasoning' (as there were no 'findings') on a 'translation' of SAT scores to IQ points. Well, for starters, you can prepare for SAT exams, so I don't know how they can compare this to an IQ test.

This section is far too speculative, comparative and apologetic and must be improved to something containing hard, referencable fact. THEPROMENADER 08:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, but the fact that a reference needs subscription does NOT make it an unsuitable ref. Simply get yourself a subscription if you so desperately want to read it. That one ref is, I assume (as you do not specify it), a perfecly acceptable scientific study (and media coverage of it), published in a peer-reviewed journal, which estimated the IQs of all US presidents. That study was NOT based on SAT scores. There were other, web-published estimates that used the SAT scores in the article previously, but when I re-added this stuff, I deliberately left those out this time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
If the study is so established, important and reliable then I think you can find a more accessible websource or other reference. I seem to remember reading something about paid sites, but will have to look this up later. Needless to say that the paper is at best an educated speculation - it is not founded on hard fact, as none to date is available on the subject. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Accesiblity of a source and reliability are two unrelated concepts. For example, studies published in the scientific journal Nature are generally regarded very reliable, but you definately have to pay for most of its contents. Discouraging the use of not-online sources will only skew the bias in Wikipedia even more, therefore there is no such policy. Scientific papers, printed magazines and printed newspapers make perfectly valid sources, also in the absence of an online version. As all scientific studies, this paper has a certain level of speculation, but then again, the whole concept of IQ is not as sturdy and rigid as some people think. Finally, the study was covered often by other newspapers etc, establishing its notability: Times:[34] Het Nieuwsblad (Belgian):[35] History News Network:[36]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, but this does nothing to show that your source is not a widespread one; rather a vague and selective speculative one chosen to 'prove' a point. If you would like to be as objective as the articles you cite, then you must cite the same, or present your information in the same way in the same context as they - after all, it is their (the press') criticism that you should be citing here - instead of making a single case for a single point of view. THEPROMENADER 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to say there. If you suggest the news sources should be cited instead of the primary research article, that is fine with me and I will be happy to rewrite the section accordingly. If you mean anything else, please explain. In addition, there is no POV here, the research article estimated the results of all presidents in the same way, and this came out, like it or not. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I was pretty straighforward, but to try again in clearer language: the only way this article can remain NPOV is for it to be a real (not selective) reflection of press coverage concerning George W. Bush - as a whole. Any comparitive essays not a comparison with the record of every president in history would be also NPOV. I do not think that "estimations of IQ's", no matter how worthy the source, is worthy of publication as a cited source for concrete information concerning IQ's, should not be presented as such, and IMHO is not even worthy of mention in a factual article; this article exists as a temoinage of a high level of criticism of George W. Bush, it is not an article to present arguments for and against the criticisms themselves, as this could never be anything but POV. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, we simply disagree :). You say this article should be about press coverage of GWB. The IQ study is covered by press. You say any comparison should include many (and preferably all) presidents to date. The IQ study does compare almost all presidents in recent history. Then finally, you you say you still think the IQ study should not be included because it are only "estimates". The problem there is that EVERY IQ VALUE, no matter how it is determined, is an estimate. It is not a fixed value for each person, but depends highly on how it is measured, when it was measured and even the mood the subject was in. Although calculated in a different way than most people are familiar with, these values are as good as any IQ value. Although I agree some parts of this article need cleaning up, it is not the IQ part I am sorry to say. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What we disagree on is the validity of the source - if all IQ tests are estimates, than this test is an estimate of estimates in many cases where information wasn't available. An official IQ number or numbers may be a valid source, but there are none - for no seeming valid reason - for president George W. Bush. This non-official "essay" is just too special and unreliable to merit so much space in the article (an entire paragraph of "for and against" essay is dedicated to its 'findings'), and its raison d'être in this article seems apologetic - "he's smarter than others". If you would like to say this will official numbers, fine, but this sort of apologetic speculation is certainly not what one could call encyclopedic. THEPROMENADER 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly where you and I disagree. What you call an "essay", I regard a scientific study in a peer reviewed journal. Now, although I agree that peer review is not the same as truth, Wikipedia is also not about truth, but about verfiability/attribution/pick your favorite policy. Unless retracted, surpassed by other studies or highly criticized (none of which applies for this particular study) a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal makes a perfect source for Wikipidia, especially when the study was covered by main stream media (as is the case here). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You say it yourself: the quest here is not to "explain truth", but to repeat hard fact. Because of its speculative nature, that "study" is anything but this - and its role here is as a defense for a "Bush isn't so stupid after all" point of view. This article is a witness to how the press treats Bush - not to present "for and against" cases. At best, that study should be cited because it was cited by the press, not cited in itself. THEPROMENADER 07:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I have no objections to that last compromise (citing press instead of directly citing the study). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lies?

I can't believe there is no discusssion of the public lies that George Bush has made in speeches and to the press. Particularly for the lead up to the Iraq War and his lies regarding the Plame Affair.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.135.0.6 (talk • contribs)

Well, these would have to be shown in an objective point of view - instances seen through the eyes of the media that reported them. I would rather call it "contradictions" than "lies" though. Sign your comments, please. THEPROMENADER 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what these lies are. Could you provide some concrete evidence for us? 2nd Piston Honda 08:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of the photo and caption

The caption reads: "Bush sits immobile for seven minutes after being informed about the September 11, 2001 attacks, while children read to him from the story "The Pet Goat"." This is under criticism of his leadership. The point it makes is a well known criticism of his leadership. Miacheal Moore makes that point in his documentary, and so do others. It is being removed a few conservatives here, and I'm restoring it. I hope they can explain themselves here before they remove it again. This article is supposed to report on and present criticisms of George Bush, so why is this major point made by critics being censored?Giovanni33 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not addressing this to Gio, but to others: This article exists to present information about the criticism. Presenting the criticism itself (which he openly admits is what he's doing) is an NPOV violation.
Giovanni33 knows this. A.J.A. 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That is sophistry. To present information about the critcism entails presenting the criticism itself, reporting the fact. That is all that captions does. How do you report on what it is, without reporting what it is? If you are saying the way we report on this POV lacks NPOV standads, then please make your case instead of edit waring by suppressing the entire POV itself, ulness the way you present information about the cricism is to blank the criicism? That is hardly an effective way to present information, although it is a good way NOT to present that information.Giovanni33 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone approaching this in good faith can see the difference between "so-and-so says, 'X'" and "X". You see the distinction whenever it suits you, not when it doesn't. A.J.A. 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so you want to say, "critics say" that "Bush sits immobile for seven minutes after being informed about the September 11, 2001 attacks," even though that is just an accepted fact, well established, that no one disputes? It was caught on video! No, that is just reporting a damaging fact. Its the interpretation of what that means which is open to POV pushing, and has to be attributed properly in NPOV terms. That is not what you are doing. You are blaking the fact itself. Dont try to confuse things. Anyone approaching this in good faith can see the difference.Giovanni33 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And who says it's a "damaging fact"? A.J.A. 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you do, or else you would not feel such a need to blank the fact! heheGiovanni33 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Placing it in this article is a pretty clear tipoff as to the intention. Your own statements are even clearer: you explicitly intend it to make a criticism. A.J.A. 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I dont make the criticism. That is not our job. Our job is to report notable criticism of which this is clearly one. I explicitly recognize the notablity of this criticism and explicitly intend to see that its given coverage in this appropriate article. I'm sure other editors will restore it in due time.Giovanni33 21:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That the above is in bad faith can bee seen by reference to everything he's said so far. A.J.A. 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the only bad faith I see here is you calling this bad faith. Please assume good faith with your interpreations.Giovanni33 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As if the whole conversation hadn't just happened. You never quit. A.J.A. 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Who said this conversation hasn't happened? It has and its clear to me that you have no basis to suppress this valid factual statement. At least you have failed to come up with any valid reasons, other than some obscure sophistry that does not apply to this situation.

BTW, Gio is out recruiting: [37] [38]. A.J.A. 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I dont want to violate 3RR, but your suppression of this information can not stand. And, as I predicted, you were reverted. Now if you want your removal to stick, I suggest you provide some real reasons and gain consensus first. The above is just obfuscation.Giovanni33 22:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Your bad faith is totally obvious and you know it. A.J.A. 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The criticism is lack of presidential action for seven minutes, not "immobile" and nothing to do with "My Pet Goat." Those bits are attempts to create ridicule and are not part of the NPOV presentation of the criticism. --Tbeatty 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The correct name of the story is "The Pet Goat", and it should certainly be mentioned here, because it has entered the popular culture. We aren't creating ridicule; we're reporting the ridicule that many people have directed at Bush. The juxtaposition between the comparative frivolity of the story title and the seriousness of the attacks is part of the criticism. See The Pet Goat#Popular culture for examples. "Immobile" shouldn't be used, however, because it implies that he was unable to move. JamesMLane t c 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a pop culture article. Nor is it the Fahrenheit 9/11 article or The Pet Goat article. This is the legitmate criticism article and it should contain sourced criticism, not pop culture references that are intended to ridicule. --Tbeatty 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The criterion for reporting an opinion on Wikipedia is that it's notable, not that Tbeatty or anyone else considers it "legitimate". If Wikipedia were restricted to opinions that all editors agree are legitimate, then I assure you that there's quite a bit of obtuse or deliberately deceptive pro-Bush opinion that would be removed. WP:NPOV supports this treatment of opinions expressed by prominent spokespersons. What policy supports the argument that any information about criticism of Bush must be suppressed unless and until that criticism has been officially adjudged "legitimate" by a pro-Bush editor? JamesMLane t c 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have restored it.Giovanni33 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The choice of lesson plan material chosen by the teacher is not notable with regard to criticism of Bush. --Tbeatty 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It became so when Bush decided to give that lesson plan priority for 7 minutes over doing anything else after he was told the country was under attack. That makes it very notable. It also is part of the criticism to contrast the child-like The Pet Goat, with the seriousness of the US being attacked. As JamesMLane put it, the juxtaposition between the comparative frivolity of the story title and the seriousness of the attacks is part of the criticism. Just consider why you feel a need to take it out to protect and defend Bush (who you like), and are edit waring over it. <refactored BLP vio>.Giovanni33 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Satiric criticisms of Bush based on "The Pet Goat" have appeared in at least five nationally-broadcast venues, as noted under the Wikipedia entry The Pet Goat. As such, a cross-reference to the expanded article is plainly warranted. --Yamara 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel no need to protect or like Bush in order to see that that the value of the title of the childrens book is grossly outweighed by the gratuitous ridicule it creates. This is not the "Satirical criticism of Bush" article, it is the legitimate criticism of Bush. Waiting for 7 minutes is arguably legitmate criticism. POinting out the title of a childrens book is gratuitous ridicule that is not encyclopedic. This is like criticising him for choking on the pretzel. It's been satired. It's been referenced in the popular culture. But it's not legitimate criticism and it's reference is not warranted in a serious critical article. --Tbeatty 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You're simply ignoring the key point. We report notable matters even when we disagree with them or consider them "gratuitous ridicule". We have a whole article about the utter BS that the Smear Boat Veterans for Bush threw at John Kerry. Your personal opinion about what's "legitimate" or "gratuitous" is irrelevant. JamesMLane t c 13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point between what's notable ("Fahrenheit 9/11" is notable criticism, "Unfit for Command" is notable) and what's not notable ("The Pet Goat" is not notable criticism, Purple heart bandaids are not notable criticism.) I would hope you would not support a picture on the John Kerry service controversy article of a Republican conventioneer wearing a Purple heart bandaid. Or support a caption that would ridicule his service because it entered "pop culture." --Tbeatty 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Pet Goat has become political shorthand for the incident, and is instantly recognizable, as evidenced by the Wikipedia article. Since The Pet Goat article is acceptable, there seems no suitably neutral argument against cross-referencing it. Your argument that the actions of a delegate (actually several delegates) on the floor of the 2004 Republican National Convention are the equivalent of dismissable "pop culture" would seem only to denigrate the American political process, though your intent was likely the opposite. For better or worse, popular understanding of political incidents are both notable and a function of American democracy, and have been since before the inception of the Republic. Finally, as a professional in the field of satire, I must point out that it is an entirely legitimate form of criticism, indeed an intrinsic one, as one of its primary functions is to expose flaws of character, which the Leadership section specifically addresses. Since there is a lock on the article, additions which will correct this oversight will have to wait until after the 20th. --Yamara 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Satire is a form of criticism, just not an encyclopedic form. The actions of delegates with Purple HEart bandaids are not legitimate criticism of John Kerry. Their actions may be notable and deserve mention elswhere, perhaps in the article on the convention, but they have nothing to do with legitimate criticism of John Kerry's service. Likewise, The Pet Goat has it's own article and certainly its mention there is legitimate as it is a main reason for the notability of The Pet Goat. It is NOT however legitimate criticism of Bush and should not be in this article. The legitimate criticism is the 7 minutes, not the choice of reading lesson and mentioning The Pet Goat is gratuitous ridicule. We might as well have a section on Pretzel Choking if we are going to inlcude stuff like that. --Tbeatty 19:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see the movie, so maybe somebody who has can clarify this: what exactly did Moore say Bush could have done during those seven minutes and what difference would it have made? A.J.A. 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that was ever explored. The 7 minutes of inaction is simply criticed. That's reliably sourced and I have no probelm with mentioning that. It has nothing to do with "The Pet Goat" however which is simply gratuitous ridicule. Some of the LIHOP/MIHOP crowd have argued that since this attack was "known" the seven minutes somehow were part of the plan (i.e. inaction was what was supposed to happen). I don't know if there are any reliable sources for that type of criticism. --Tbeatty 04:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I bring this up because without reasonable grounds for thinking "action" would have been better, the stuff about seven minutes of inaction is itself gratuitous. Presumably all the decisions to be made during those seven minutes were tactical rather than strategic, and it's not clear Presidential intervention in tactical decisions would be a good thing. But then, maybe in some cases in would be. It just seems an argument of some kind should be provided to that effect. A.J.A. 04:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty, you just keep reiterating your invented criterion of "legitimate" criticism. What is your authority for asserting that Wikipedia reports only legitimate criticism? For the record, I don't think the attacks on Kerry were legitimate in the slightest. The Smear Boat Vets deliberately and knowingly lied, contradicting written records and their own prior statements. They disgraced their service for political reasons, because they disliked Kerry for his criticism of the government's Vietnam policy. Nevertheless, their illegitimate criticism was notable so of course we have an article on it. It's encyclopedic to give an encyclopedic report of statements that, themselves, do not meet the standards we adhere to. (It's encyclopedic to report that there are idiots in this world!) Your proposed criterion of "legitimate" would be totally unworkable because editors would inevitably disagree about what qualified. JamesMLane t c 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No one is arguing against including criticism. No one has argued that "The Pet Goat" was criticism either. "The Pet Goat" is extraneous information whose value as ridicule far outweighs it's probative value in an article criticising Bush. You went to arbitration over the use of the word "minor" in describing John Kerry's minor wound so agreement is obviously not the overriding factor in inclusion. Rather, when discussing living persons ridicule should not be the standard. The criticism of Bush stands without the inclusions of "the Pet Goat". No one would argue that he would be above criticism if he was reading the journal "Nature" to school children for 7 minutes. He would face the same criticism for the seven minutes. I have not stated an opinion on whether the criticism of seven minutes is legitimate as it is irrelevant to what my opinion is. However, I do know that "The Pet Goat" is NOT criticism and has no probative value to the criticism of George Bush. I go back to the "Purple Heart Bandaids". Should we have a picture of people wearing Purple Heart bandaids in the Kerry article with the caption describing his war wounds? I hope you see that the answer is no. "The Pet Goat" has it's place. Purple heart bandaids have their place. Neither of them belong in the serious articles of criticism for Bush or Kerry. --Tbeatty 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[reindent]Your reference to "probative value" reveals your error. In this context, what you or I consider to be probative doesn't matter. We're not here to assess the arguments pro and con, reach a reasoned conclusion, and tell the reader which side is right. Instead, we're here to present the facts and let the reader decide. When we deal with controversial areas, the facts include facts about what notable statements have been made by others, even when those statements aren't encyclopedic. We report those statements without adopting them.

Applying that standard to Kerry: It's not correct to say that I went to arbitration over one word in the Kerry article. The word was discussed (along with many, many other things) in the course of the arbitration. You can see a summary of that point here. I argued for a version that told the reader that Kerry's wound was treated with an application of Bacitracin dressing and that Kerry went on his normal patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm. Those are facts. There's no reason for Wikipedia to decide that the wound was "minor" (which is not any kind of official Navy classification); the readers can decide for themselves how to characterize it. We can, however, report that others have voiced that opinion, as long as we merely report it rather than adopting it. That's why we reported the distortions and outright lies of Kerry's detractors. In an article about Criticism of John F. Kerry then yes, absolutely, a picture of the Republican hypocrites mocking him by wearing Purple Hearts would be relevant. I don't think it's important enough to be in the John F. Kerry article, but I certainly wouldn't ban the photo from Wikipedia just because I've concluded that it constitutes ridicule rather than "legitimate" criticism. What matters is that it happened.

Applying that standard to Bush: This article is not Legitimate criticism of George W. Bush. We should report all notable criticisms. Ridicule is certainly a form of criticism. The details given in our article on "The Pet Goat" show that Bush's critics did make use of the fact that he wasn't reading Nature. Some readers will judge that it was foolish of Bush to sit there reading at such a time. Others may judge that it's foolish of his critics to harp on the silly title of the story, because he might just as well have been reading Nature. So be it. We provide the facts about the criticisms, including the fact that Kerry critics mocked a military award and the fact that Bush critics seized on the happenstance of a story title. JamesMLane t c 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Both the fact that Bush was motionless for seven minutes and the fact that the class was reading The Pet Goat are facts, not opinions, not POV. And both are backed up by citations of reliable sources. Both are points about which Bush has been critisized (see the sources). Moreover, I think it is useful to retain the wiki-link to The Pet Goat, because that article provides more information on the criticisms that have been made, the defenses that have been made, and its relevance in culture. (You would not have found 2 million hits on Google for The Pet Goat on 9/10/2001!) -- Dr.enh 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact that republicans wore Purple Heart bandaids and it was ridiculing criticism. These are criticisms of living people and ridiculing criticism whose value is extremely limited in educating the reader. I have compromised by changing the caption. I think your characterization of both the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and the Republican conventioneers convey an animosity that is carrying over into your assessment of what is legitimate criticism and what is not. Appropriatness of inclusion is made all the time. Especially articles on living people. I still have yet to see what the criticism of "The Pet Goat" is. I have seen the 7 minutes but not how it relates to "The Pet Goat". You cannot be serious that you would support simply factual pictures in an article becuase they happend. Kerry has been "criticized" for looking like "Lurch" and to Laurel and hardy. Would you honestly support a picture like this for criticism of Kerry? Or this? They are real pictures, just not probative criticism. The football picture is a real event. They are just not encyclopedic. In this context, the picture was taken on 9/11 and has some value in that repsct. Captioning it to create ridicule is however not encyclopedic. The current description "Bush continues reading with children for seven minutes after being informed about the September 11, 2001 attacks, which has become a point of criticism by many of his opponents." is adequate and covers the criticism and why. --Tbeatty 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I agree with your removal of "trivia" here. Even if it is deciding what is "trivia" and not just blindly reporting that it happened. Food for thought. --Tbeatty 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I support the photo. Do you remember the photos and videos of John Kerry on the Windsurfing Board? It made a big stinky in the press. I think that would be okay in a 'criticism of John Kerry article' too. It wasn't serious but it was 'noatable'. Please count my !vote for inclusing the photo. Thank you. ΞBmedleySutlerΞ 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course we don't just blindly report every fact. We assess notability. That's why several of us in this thread have been at pains to point out the notability of the "Pet Goat" point. There is no Wikipedia article about John Kerry throwing a football or about his being compared by right-wingers to Lurch. There is no search related to either of those topics that would garner more than 100,000 Google hits. Neither of them caused a one-month backorder on Amazon or generated the kind of attention detailed in The Pet Goat#Popular culture. The football and Lurch things are trivia. It's true that Kerry did throw the football and does bear some resemblance to Lurch. Nevertheless, truthful but nonnotable criticisms don't merit inclusion. On the other hand, the Smear Boat Vets' criticism, while false, was notable (because of their ability to spread it widely), so we do report on it.
The problem, of course, is that while the rest of us keep talking about notability (the Wikipedia standard), you remain committed to your own private standard of deciding which criticisms are "legitimate". Your opinion about what's legitimate, like mine, just isn't relevant. You've invented a criterion that has no support in any Wikipedia policy.
I agree that we shouldn't caption the picture to create ridicule. Simply naming the story doesn't do so. We could legitimately stop there or we could legitimately add that Bush's opponents frequently used "Pet Goat" references as a way of ridiculing Bush. Either way, the reader deserves the information about the connection between the phrase "Pet Goat" and Bush. (In fact, the picture received enough play that I think it clearly belongs in the main George W. Bush article. It's more important than, for example, a photo of Bush shaking hands with the President of Colombia in a completely routine meeting of heads of state. I see, however, in a quick scan of the Bush article, that the Bush apologists have succeeded not only in removing the photo, which happened some time ago, but also in removing any mention of the incident. The September 11 coverage now consists almost entirely of quoting Bush himself, with a photo of him posturing at Ground Zero. Unfortunately, I just don't have time right now to try to restore some kind of balance there.)
As for your reiterated reference to articles about living people, it's completely misplaced. The policy requires that contentious statements about living people be properly sourced. There is absolutely no slightest controversy whatsoever that Bush was reading "The Pet Goat" during the seven minutes. JamesMLane t c 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Edit

I am restoring the Environment section from that amended by Judgesurreal. First the good judge placed a tag about a need to expand the section while simultaneously deleting material and sources. He also said "this is not a forum to educate about bushs misdeeds, its an encyclopedia". Wrong again (at least on the first part). The article is exactly about Bush's misdeeds. 69.107.224.129 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

President Bush has recently admitted a "battle with alcohol". I have included this in the "personal behavior" section, above Bushisms. I think I messed up the ref citation, but I really, really tried to do it correctly. If anyone wishes to make the necessary changes to the citation so that it displays correctly, please go ahead. Surely alcoholism is worthy of inclusion under the "personal behavior" heading (especially for the President of the USA), which is why I went ahead and included it without discussion. This might seem presumptuous, but then any arguments for its removal would have to be compelling. 123.200.198.152 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hostility Towards Poor section

This section looks like it was written by an 8th grader. "What strikes many as very wrong about this is that while there is apparently many billions of dollars to be thrown at the Iraq war, one which many even in the military view as a fiasco, there is apparently not money available to help the poor in the United States." That is SUCH an POV sentence. When did Bush or any Republican for that matter say there wasn't enough money available to help the poor? Further, many believe that President Bush and the Republicans have been helping the poor. The whole section should be removed. Anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.86.152 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I edited this section, removing the ridiculous second paragraph. I also touched some stuff up on the other paragraphs so it is worded better and is less biased. It would maybe be important to note that conservatives would argue they are not ignoring the poor whatsoever and policies like lower taxes, less government regulation, and reduce spending are all put in place to in fact help the poor. Whether you agree or disagree with that statement, you must admit that reading this section would make the reader feel that Bush opposes policies that help the poor and Bush wants the poor to stay where they are at. If 50% think that Bush hurts the poor and 50% think that Bush helps the poor, then it would probably be best to include both sides.Kgj08 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I DEMAND that this section be shut down from edits. I keep changing it to make it more neutral but it is always reverted back to the original form. READ IT! It's written horribly! Encyclopedias don't say things like "What strikes many as very wrong about this is that while there is apparently many billions of dollars to be thrown at the Iraq war, one which many even in the military view as a fiasco, there is apparently not money available to help the poor in the United States." There are so many things wrong with that. Whose the editor for this page? Edits on this section NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN! Those that remove my edits don't tell me why they did. The third person finally did describe why with "NPOV". That is not sufficient for an edit.-BradKgj08 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yamara, how about you be a man and discuss your changes right here. I'm saying that edits for this section need to be closed because I have been editing the wording and people like YOU are changing it without giving reason. Nobody is addressing this either. Why don't you just talk on here.Kgj08 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem with the citation about food stamps that Kgj08 repeatedly blanked: it did not emphasize the Criticism of George W. Bush, but rather the Republican Congress of the time. The article must remain on topic, and this means it must strive to include a complete list of criticisms of Bush, and at most only a few rejoinders or apologists, as those topics are adequately covered in other articles on Wikipedia.

In any case, I have clarified the criticisms of Bush regarding the withdrawal of subsidy for food stamps, so as to further the completeness of the article. I also addressed a minor but noticeable issue of grammar that was raised. Those wishing to add to the completeness of the article should avoid removing references and blanking ungrammatical sentences, but should be encouraged to add additional citations of Criticism of George W. Bush. —Yamara ✉ 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, much of that is worded significantly better than before. However, I would not add the smirking part. That's pretty sneaky. Also, should we maybe mention (to keep it neutral) that Bush and his supporters believe that his policies have been designed to help all tiers and in fact, have helped poor people (52 months of economic growth (record!), creation of millions of new jobs, unemployment between 3-5% (where most economists say that it should be at), record home ownership, success of the stock market, etc.? Kgj08 (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Neutral" would be an unbiased mirror of the widespread Criticism of George W. Bush in today's media - not "equal" 50-50 volumes of "for and against" arguments for certain of his policies. Besides, this article is a reflection of the widespread criticism of Bush; to lavish praise, perhaps it would be best to start a Praise of George W. Bush article. Yet even that would need a fact check - Wikipedia's not a spin machine. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree that the criticisms page should only have criticisms HOWEVER if there is no praises page, then a page with only criticisms points to an automatic, inherent bias. Shouldn't a page titled "Praises of George W. Bush" be created? The only thing I'm worried about is that this article treats Bush's policies as if they actually did hurt the poor. It should state that some believe his policies have hurt the poor and be strict in pointing that out.Kgj08 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This article exists only because a) the George W. Bush article is far too long and b) criticisms of the aforementioned president in the press are so many that the subject can very well have an article of its own. I repeat that this article should not contain anything opinion, but should reflect the opinions expressed through the press.
If you would like to start a "Praise" article, there's nothing stopping you (although many would question the content validity of a such subject) - you could add a link to it from this article, as well as from the George W. Bush main article. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I would definitely be interested in starting one. I'm definitely worried about bias though. I have a feeling you would get a lot of people who would object to the praises. My only comeback is that I object to many of the criticisms. But yes, having a criticisms page and not a praises page makes Wikipedia's entire biography of President Bush inherently biased (extremely biased in fact). -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] addition of template

The article still suffers from serious problems, including POV and OR, and Undue weight. SpecificallY:

  • Nowhere in the article is any specific source for calling the subject "hostile" to the poor indicated, making that section heading both OR and explicit POV. That section also contains reference to "Republicans in general", which is arguably not appropriate for this article, as that claim is, at this point, standard boilerplate for several rather extreme opponents of Republicans.
  • The references to Michael Moore's film also fail to address any of the responses to such criticism, and, in fact, I'm not aware of anywhere where such content exists. References to intellectual capactity ignore published reports that he did better in college than John Kerry did, which are I believe relevant.
  • The article in general seems to be little more than a collection of almost unrelated incidents in which the subject has behaved in a way which others later criticized. I cannot help but think that the entire article needs serious cleanup, or, failing that, if such proves impossible, that it be deleted and the relevant content be merged elsewhere. However, the article as it stands seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and present only a very one-sided description of the events it does cover, with, to the best of my knowledge, no balancing information existing anywhere. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template moved to section

Most of John Carter's concerns are in a specific section, and the one following. Some explanation of my move follows, as well as responses to John's concerns:

Article exists because it was too extensive a part of George W. Bush, thus a merge would only recreate a problem the article solves. Criticism, by definition, is a point of view; what must be maintained regarding WP:POV is a neutral tone in recording the non-neutral opinions of sources.

As for John's first two bullet points, these should be solved by editing, or at most marking the sections, not the entire article. References to Republicans should indeed be kept in the context of the leadership exercised by Bush over the party and its elected officials and appointees, as perceived by reliably sourced critics. Most references to Republicans are so cited in the article; those that are not should have a "citation needed" attached, or be edited. This goes for any concerns of OR, of course; a blanket template cannot help isolate original research in such a long article.

Third bullet point: "little more than a collection of almost unrelated incidents": All incidents in the article are related in the person of George W. Bush, an individual of considerable notability and influence. Re: WP:INDISCRIMINATE : "our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The actions and behavior of a modern two-term President of the United States is arguably of the highest importance and interest to Wikipedia's users.

Deletion has failed through two rounds already, and does not need to be revisited. Re: Undue Weight : "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Either the article Criticism of George W. Bush is not comparing conflicting views, only discussing criticism, and/or it represents a substantial majority view. See above comments by ThePromenader at 14 February, esp. where a "Praise of George W. Bush" article is suggested.

Finally, as I stated before, Wikipedia has dozens of such criticism articles. Do a Search for "Criticism of". Religions and corporations come in first for the most part; Muhammad is the first person whose criticism page turns up, George W. Bush the first living person, followed by Noam Chomsky, Tony Blair, Ghandi, and many others. --Yamara ✉ 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)