Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vandalism by Gcracker

George W. Bush has the distinction of having the greatest swing in popularity in the modern era, and since approval ratings began in 1930. From 93% for a high (the highest ever for a President) just after the September 11 attacks to 28% for a low (tied for third lowest ever) achieved in 2007.[1]

Updates are needed on this bio page, I propose the following

During the course of the president’s second term, a number of political scientists and scholars of American History have worked to analyze the rank of Mr. Bush’s performance and effectiveness as a U.S. president. A consensus among analysts is forming that Mr. Bush may likely be the worst president ever to hold office in U.S. history based on failures of integrity, wasteful policy and a significant decline in the level of respect for the U.S. globally. Scholars also cite Mr. Bush’s former alcoholism and use of cocaine was stupid. Also cited are suspected vote rigging which enabled him to narrowly win a second term in office, and a number of policies that attempt to take away civil liberties as well as failed foreign and domestic policies. The warrant-less wire tapping of U.S. citizens, failure to respond appropriately to national emergencies and refusal to allow photography of the coffins of deceased soldiers returning from war are some of the blunders of this president. Would the president desire to disallow public photography of his own coffin were he to become deceased? The president’s stance on disallowing photography of the coffins of deceased soldiers serves to dishonor the service of these brave men and women who have given their lives in the line of duty.

Most significantly however is the president’s stubborn stance on the continuation of a war with the country of Iraq in spite of increasing public and congressional sentiment calling for an end to the U.S. led invasion. The extent to which the president has lied to the American people has become increasingly illuminated by the severity of the false statements made to support his action to declare war. As of April 2007, more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq in addition to more than 20,000 severe injuries of U.S. troops serving in Iraq as well as countless deaths and injuries of Iraq based U.S. contractors as well as Iraqi citizens. Although these numbers do not rank Mr. Bush as the deadliest president in history, there is no excuse for exposing so many hard working U.S. military service men and women to such needless peril in the twenty-first century. Mr. Bush may however earn the distinction as being the deadliest president of this century but that distinction will have to wait another 93 years.

Not surprisingly, at least one state (Vermont) has begun to deliberate motions calling for the impeachment of the president. In effect these motions to impeach the president are a rebuke that more generally says “shame on you Mr. Bush for abuse of power, demotion of the honor of the U.S. presidency and a grave failure of foreign policy”. Time will tell whether the inclinations of scholars and historians are correct. Ironically, a democratically led congress during the last two years of Mr. Bush’s final term may alter the president’s standing in the final analysis.

What happened to the Table of Contents?

The box is there but it is empty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.141.239.249 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 March 2007.

You need to click the word "show" beside it. New posts go to the bottom of the page, so I've moved yours. And by the way, please type four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of posts on talk pages. They convert automatically into your signature and the date, so that we can keep track of who said what. ElinorD (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This perfectly illustrates the attitude of Wikipedia and their left-wing admins and authors. You people are pathetic. No, that's not an insult, it's a fact.12.145.184.6 19:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't feed the trolls but what illustrates the attitude? Hiding the table of contents to make the article look nice or asking people to sign their posts so it's easier to keep track of who said what when? Nil Einne 10:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed {{TOChidden}} again. People who simply read articles are not going to be familiar with this template and the TOC needs to be in plain view. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the lack of a TOC on the talk page? --DachannienTalkContrib 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No, but that is odd. I nowiki'd the template above just in case that was causing a problem. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
_TOC_ and _FORCETOC_ didn't help. - auburnpilot talk 19:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, how do you get tech support on this thing?  ;) --DachannienTalkContrib 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've figured out what the problem is (the existence of a TOC within the collapsed WP1.0 box above), but I don't know how to fix it. I'll ask around. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Apparently, the WP1.0 template transcludes the contents of a subpage called /Comments onto this page. Since that page had a heading on it, it caused the TOC to be generated there instead of in the appropriate place. I've reported the issue on the template talk page and am reporting that report to one of that template's editors. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamanov photo scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Shamanov --HanzoHattori 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Can this page be unprotected once Bush's 2nd term ends?TNTfan101 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pages are protected due to (recent) vandalism, which is likely to continue even after his term ends (e.g. Al Gore, Bill Clinton). IMO it can really only be unprotected after he is no longer a "public figure" and the vandals lose interest in him.

Yoda921 07:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Actually pages are only semi-protected when the vandalism is such a level that it is considered necessary. Occasional vandalism happens in many pages, some more then others & it's usually let be. There are many public figures with unprotected pages. While it would probably be a few months, maybe even a few years before things changed enough for GWB that he may no longer be such a prime target, as a former US president he would probably be a public figure of sorts for the rest of his life but may not be a prime wikivandal target for all that time. Al Gore has maintained a fairly outspoken and high profile. Bill Clinton hasn't really but by he may have been affected by his wife. Was his page virtually continually (semi)protected in 2005? (Mind you, I do suspect in a few years were going to need to protect a greater percentage of pages then we do currently) Nil Einne 10:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sam Fox controversy

Is the appointment of Sam Fox noteworthy enough to be included? (On the other hand: what's new with power-abusing politicians after all?) Syrion 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like this happens all the time, it just usually goes unreported. If you look hard enough, you'll be able to find similar actions taken by basically all recent presidents. So in short, no, I don't think its noteworthy enough.--Mbc362 00:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bush=Jesus

What a great NPOV article. Why not just say the guy is the reincarnation of Christ, the best president that ever was and an all round nice guy. Sure he's a bit controversial - but what the hey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.241.194 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

No. Bkkeim2000 02:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can tell it was a joke. Or at least, I hope so. Really, I have never met anyone that likes Bush. At all. Neospawn 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, perfect stranger! Let the impugnment begin! </sarcasm> --DachannienTalkContrib 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When will this article be free?

Just out of curiosity, but at which time do you think that people will stop vandalising this article, and the semi-protection be removed? I'd say at the end of time. --Jw21 aka PenaltyKillah 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Mid 2009 or so. I'd guess. --W.marsh 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say more, look at Bill Clinton's page and Al Gore's. Bkkeim2000 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say you would probably have to wait until he dies... and even then it's questionable--marqmike2 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lol M_1 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Never...obviously. Jmlk17 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Had a little tidy of the intro, trying to make it more concise. If anyone has a problem with an aspect of it then please edit rather than whole revert. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Has someone mucked about with this sentence ....

   The War in Iraq has proven controversial, with criticism including but not limited to evidence
that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, with admissions by the CIA that there were no
weapons programs and by President Bush of faulty intelligence.[5][6]

The punctuation is a bit iffy at least. It also contains a logical fallacy (evidence of no WMD, surely should be lack of evidence for WMD) and sort of says Bush has faulty intelligence not was provided with or used ... etc. Regardless of "humorous" personal editorial, doesn't seem to be the standard an encyclopedia should have. Any thoughts? I'd edit myself, but maybe it's just me misunderstanding the text! Wiki benguin 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Wiki_Benguin

You're not misunderstanding anything - the intro is terrible (and not just in its grammar).--Mbc362 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor's comment

There seems to be a top of page comment on the main article seeking to have editors refrain from edit, even experienced editors, I respect the concerns of dispute and over content. However, the key to those problems primarily involves good communication and forking. Given Wikipedia's policy on community participation, comment's such as the one in question (as it currently is stated on the page) sound quite arrogant, and in my opinion innappropriate. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Vandalism to this page will be reverted within seconds. Consider helping instead of damaging other people's hard work. In addition, we ask even our most experienced editors to keep in mind that this article is already way too big and we probably don't need any more barely-relevant info." ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with the statement as the article is extremely long; what it needs is to be reduced. The last thing this article needs is additional (typically irrelevant) information. There are a handful of sub-articles where more detail can be given to topics, with a brief summary placed here. As a hidden statement only seen when editing, I don't see a problem with the suggestion. - auburnpilot talk 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed Kyoto Protocol

While stressing his successful record as governor of Texas, Bush's campaign attacked[citation needed] the Democratic nominee, incumbent Vice President Al Gore, over gun control and taxation. Bush criticized the failed Kyoto Protocol, which Gore championed, by citing the decline of the industries in the Midwestern states, such as West Virginia, and resulting economic hardships.

While a number of people think the Kyoto Protocol has failed (in many cases because of the US's refusal to ratify it) I don't think it's fair or NPOV to call it a 'failed' protocol. Is this sentence supposed to say something other then what it seems to say to me? The protocol has of course been in force since Russia ratified it Nil Einne 10:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the 'failed' part. I found the source of the word here [2]. As I suspected, it was an attempt to clarify that the Kyoto Protocol has already failed a Senate vote. However this doesn't make it a 'failed protocol' other then in the US perhaps. I don't see any need to go back to the original wording however. There is no need IMHO to discuss the fact that the Kyoto Protocol had failed a Senate vote in the Bush vs. Al Gore section. What's noteable here is their views on the protocol. If editors feel there is need to mention the previous failed vote in this article, it would be better in the George W. Bush#Environmental policy and global warming section Nil Einne 11:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "unratified" would be less POV than "failed".

Discussion of Impeachment Section

It seems this section has been removed and re-added several times, so I was hoping to get a clear consensus before removing it once again. So, in short, I believe having an entire section devoted to this in Bush's article violates WP:NPOV as it gives undue weight to the subject. While there have been calls by certain individuals or groups for impeachment, there has not been any substantial steps taken toward impeaching Bush. I find it a little ridiculous to even mention quotes such as "before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment." I would accept having a brief paragraph under Domestic perceptions discussing the topic, assuming of course, that it also mentions facts such as that a majority of Americans do not currently approve of impeaching Bush. Thoughts?--Mbc362 00:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It no doubt deserves a mention in the main article with a sub-article to cover the topic in more detail. However, I would change it, as suggested from being a section to sub-section in domestic preceptions. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 11:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this topic a few weeks ago, and opinions were about 50-50. There were no strong opinions against the section. It mentions opposition to impeachment as well as a public opinion poll. As of now, it is a small sub-section. Randomfrenchie 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For anybody interested, the old discussion was here, the opinions were not about 50-50 and there were strong opinions against it.--Mbc362 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


If a small group/organization/company have asked for Bush's impeachment, I would think that it is not a subject that should be added to this already long article. Most presidents have had a small, or unknown, group/organization/company ask for their impeachment. Even if a larger public figure has asked for an impeachment of Bush, I think it is not something that should be mentioned. If, in the very near future, Bush is impeached, that would make for a viable reason to add a section about impeachment request. 68.60.25.58 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unnessesary statement

I really think that "he will be ineligible to stand for re-election by virtue of the U.S. Constitution" isn't nessesary, and may be a POV pushing, for implying that it's good thing that Bush will no long be able to run as the president. If it implyed it was a bad thing, that wouldn't be in accordance with being neutral, I think.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since Wikipedia was not around during the time of Clinton's admin. we don't have a precedent to set this on... Perhaps we take it out of the introduction and add it somewhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkkeim2000 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
The paragraph states when he was elected, when he was reelected, and then states that he can't be reelected again. The sentence taken by itself could be construed as POV, but when put in context with the rest of the paragraph I just don't see the problem with it. Think of it this way, if he could be reelected again, the sentence would say that he would be up for reelection in 2008. That wouldn't imply that its a good thing if he's reelected, just simply stating a fact.--Mbc362 03:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bushisms in "See Also"

Would like to suggest that the article on Bushism be added to the see also list. Would also seem a logical sub-subsection within the main body of the article as it goes directly to his image as a less than intelligent person in general. RoyBatty42 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable (as a see-also item). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Its already mentioned and linked to under domestic criticism.--Mbc362 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I've removed it from See Also. Nicely caught. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Arutinian Spelling

When I type "Vladimir Arutinian" into Google, Google suggests that it is "Vladimir Arutyunyan", I realise Google spelling is based on the popularity of that keyword, but could anyone please clarify the correct spelling?

For your consideration: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=Vladimir+Arutinian&btnG=Google+Search

Adam 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several spellings for his name, as with all names from alphabets other than our own. The spelling in this article matches the reference used for it.--Mbc362 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Introduction

I reworded the introduction so that it encompasses more of Bush's presidency. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, I think you have to admit that a lot has happened the past seven years, enough to justify a more expansive intro. I've tried to make it as neutral as possible, showing both sides of the issue. For instance, take a look at these excerpts from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Reagan:

Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale after a period of economic stagflation and a recession, through his economic policies. Coined "Reaganomics," they consisted of large tax cuts, moderate deregulation, robust job creation, reductions in inflation, but soaring budget deficits.[1][2] Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984, after surviving an assassination attempt, and record setting economic expansion. He experienced several scandals during his presidency, the most notable being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.

Clinton:

During Clinton's presidency, the world continued a transition from the political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in its history. In 1998, as a result of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, he became the second president to be impeached by the United States House of Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate and remained in office to complete his term. Clinton was a New Democrat politician and was mainly responsible for the Third Way philosophy of governance that came to epitomize his two terms as president. Clinton left office with polls revealing that many questioned his morals and ethics; however, he also retained a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-presidency rating among all the Presidents that came into office after World War II.[2]

SpiderMMB 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph has unnecessary bold text, "never possesed" [sic], which probably violates a neutral point of view. Also, the word is spelled "possessed." 64.93.245.135 17:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I removed the bold and corrected the spelling. --ElKevbo 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, those changes were not mine. My change was as follows, which I am reverting to:
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current U.S. President. He was elected as Governor of Texas in 1994, serving for nearly six years in that capacity before being elected President in the contested 2000 Presidential election against Al Gore, one of the closest in U.S. history. Bush was re-elected in 2004, receiving the highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in American history (though his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, received the second largest number of votes in presidential history).[1]
Eight months into Bush's first presidential term in 2001, the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States occurred. In response Bush announced a "war on terror", which would become a central issue of his presidency. In early October 2001, he ordered an invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban as part of an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda.[2] Then in March 2003, Bush ordered a second war, the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction.[3][4] The War in Iraq has proven controversial, with criticism including but not limited to evidence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, with admissions by the CIA that there were no weapons programs and by President Bush of faulty intelligence.[5][6] However, Bush and some of his supporters maintain that the war was justifed in the broader context of "promoting democracy" in the Middle East, and the administration has stated that knowing what it does today it still would have gone to war.[7][8]
Some other notable topics of Bush's presidency include: tax cuts, Hurricane Katrina, gay marriage, stem cell research, and the environment. SpiderMMB 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed "some other topics", as that's not an acceptable statement in an introduction. The job of an introduction is to either give information or get out of the way. "X, Y, and Z" were topics--without any context or information at all--just doesn't fly in an introduction. (But I like the rest of it, pretty much.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to trivia

Apparently we're back to including irrelevant information. I removed the section noting the numerous previous discussion on removing the trivia section, but have been reverted. I intend to remove it again, but welcome comments. As to the reverter's comment that he sees no discussion, please try archives 48, 49, 50, and 51 (note 51 discussed it twice). - auburnpilot talk 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't anything to discuss; this article is far too long already without including useless information. I've removed the section myself.--Mbc362 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it twice before, if I recall correctly. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me I didn't realize article hawks had decided 'trivia' was anathema around here. Please forgive me, as the staunch decisions which some clusters of folk decide about articles is really always so arbitrary, its really hard to guess when you're in violation. Nevermind the fact that arguments like 'this article is so long' has no bearing nor precedent in any wikipedia tenant (nay, it even controverts Wikipedia is not paper, but who cares, really?). I realize things such as this fall like meaningless anecdotes on the made-up-mind. I added that our president "does not use email"--trivial? Yes. Notable? The NYT and many other sources seemed to think so. And I did too. Anyway, way to punish a good faith, interesting contribution. Keep it up! =)Yeago 10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Try reading WP:LENGTH (and perhaps WP:CIVIL as well), having unnecessarily long articles reduces the overall readability. There is no such thing as notable trivia. Its either notable, or its trivia. As for the NYT, they are trying to make money, not an encyclopedia. They write what that they think will sell.--Mbc362 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, forgive me for incivility. I did consider length, but we're talking about 4 lines here. =). Moreover, the fact that some have deemed Trivia sections to be the first to go when WP:LENGTH is an issue is arbitrary.
I agree with that, but I also think that tidbits like his not reading email, or the plethora of his other quirks make for both an interesting read and an interesting insight into his personality. "Consensus" doesn't think so. *shrug*. I do too much other stuff here to wrangle about this trivial matter.Yeago 14:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You are forgiven. Editors have actually been in the process of shortening this article for a while now, a lot of material has been removed from the Childhood to mid-life, Iraq War and Foreign Policy (and other) sections already. While the section right now was only a few lines, trivia sections have a tendency to grow like weeds so before long it could have been wholly unmanageable.--Mbc362 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)



Let's talk about the lead

Here we go, a brutal summary of why the lead needs to be heavily, heavily, truly heavily modified. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current U.S. President. He was elected as Governor of Texas in 1994, serving for nearly six years in that capacity before being elected President in the contested 2000 Presidential election against Al Gore, one of the closest in U.S. history. Bush was re-elected in 2004

No arguments about these sentences, other than the start and end dates of his term should be in there.

, receiving the highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in American history (though his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, received the second largest number of votes in presidential history).[1]

Almost totally irrelevant, especially the stuff in the parenthenses. Should be deleted wholesale (MAYBE claiming that he beat John Kerry).

Eight months into Bush's first presidential term in 2001, the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States occurred.

Well golly gee duh, it happened eight months into his first presedential term (which started in January 2001, which is either in the lead elsewhere or badly needs to be). The whole dependent clause should be gone and the rest modified.

In response Bush announced a "war on terror", which would become a central issue of his presidency.

Could be shorter.

In early October 2001, he ordered an invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban as part of an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda.[2]

Way too many words.

Then in March 2003, Bush ordered a second war, the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction.[3][4]

"the second war" is stupid and pointless. Well, no duh it's the second war. (Please understand, I am criticizing prose written on a wikipedia page, not you personally or the authors of it. Heck, I wrote some of this stuff.) This is all wordy, though difficult to shorten much.

The War in Iraq has proven controversial, with criticism including but not limited to evidence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, with admissions by the CIA that there were no weapons programs and by President Bush of faulty intelligence.[5][6]

The CIA admission is totally irrelevant to the President. It shouldn't even be in the article, let alone the introduction! Why is "Weapons of Mass Destruction" capitalized here and lowercase a sentence earlier? This sentence says way too much.

However, Bush and some of his supporters maintain that the war was justifed in the broader context of "promoting democracy" in the Middle East, and the administration has stated that knowing what it does today it still would have gone to war.[7][8]

Totally, totally, totally, totally, totally inappropriate in the introduction. Going WAY too far into heavy detail. Keep in mind the entire scope of this man's life. Before mentioning anything else, we say a phrase like "Bush and some of his supporters maintain that the war was justifed in the broader context of 'promoting democracy' in the Middle East"? You've got to be kidding me.
While I definitely don't want to insult you or anyone, this text as written is completely unacceptable. That's the reason I edited it so heavily. It sucks. We should fix it. Go Wikipedia. Right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly agree with you. This is by far one of the worst introductions I've ever seen and needs to be fixed right away. I was trying to write a new one though due to personal stuff I haven't gotten very far. In case your curious, you can view it here to see what I've got and what my thoughts are. You, Matt Yeager, are free to edit my draft page if you so wish (if anybody else wishes to, contact me on my talk page). In short though, I think we need to devote 4 paragraphs to it, the first discussing his family ties and his elections. The second discussing his foreign policy, specifically the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq. The third is devoted to domestic policies, namely his tax cuts, the patriot act, and the overall economy. The last would be to simply mention controversies (not going into details though!).--Mbc362 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree as well. The intro needs to be an overview of the article in its entirety; right now it's Iraq part 1. There was a fairly well written intro not too long ago, so I'll try to flip through the history and find it. Something definitely needs to be done. - auburnpilot talk 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AuburnPilot that the previous intros were better. I think this section is particularly silly: receiving the highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in American history (though his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, received the second largest number of votes in presidential history).[1] All this amounts to saying is that the voting population of the U.S. has increased and that there was high turnout. Benzocane 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the intro focuses too much on the Iraq War and not enough on the person. Much of the detail in the intro (especially the second paragraph) should be moved farther down in the article or into other more relevant articles altogether. The intro should mention, but not expand upon, things like political and corporate occupations held, major achievements, and major controversies. For example, the Ronald Reagan article mentions Iran-Contra in the intro, and indeed the article goes into more detail in an appropriate paragraph, but the intro doesn't start getting into the merits or evils of what happened in that scandal. Similarly, the GWB article should mention the Iraq War and mention its unpopularity, but save all the wrangling over material being placed and removed for POV purposes for later in the article. On a side note, there's a general overuse of scare quotes throughout the article, including the introduction. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Hey. Well, first off, I'm glad we're having this conversation. A few responses to the stuff I specifically wrote:
  • The John Kerry thing. It might be irrelevant, the reason I included it was to show how important the 04 election was to people. Prior to the election itself, both sides billed it as "the most important election of our lifetime." The numbers do not just show that the U.S. populatoin has expanded, because despite that expansion voter turnout as a percentage was notoriously low for previous elections. That was the purpose of that line.
  • I mentioned the CIA assertions because they're mentioned in the article that is cited too re: "no weapons in Iraq." Too specific? Cool, cut it.
  • The elaboration on "promoting democracy" was only to counter-balance the criticms. Keep in mind I was trying to pacify the line about "No WMD was discovered resulting in public outcry."
  • WMD was capitalized in one sentence and not the next because I wrote one sentence and capitalize it and didn't write the sentence prior. I think it should be capitalized due to the aconym WMD. But this is a minor point.
As an overview, here are some problems I think need to be remedied. 1) It focuses too heavily on the wars. Granted, 9/11 and the wars are probably the biggest parts of Bush's presidency, but by far not the only parts. 2) I wanted to incorporate that there are criticisms of Bush, just as there are of any other presidents. 3) I wanted to temper the criticisms with some assertions of support for Bush. Note that though this is not my own position, I don't think it's fair that this should turn into a "bash Bush" article when it is supposed to be an academic and encylopedic entry. There are plenty of blogs and other places on the internet to vent frustration at Bush, or to praise the man. This should be unbiased while noting that both sides do exist.
That's all. As it stands I think the intro is way too short and uninformative, hence the elaboration I tried to provide. Someone mentioned the Reagan page. Again, look at the detail that page goes into about Reagan's presidency. Aside from the "experienced some scandals" line it was almost entirely a glowing review of Reagan. I worked with someone on the page (who considers Reagan his hero) to counterbalance this by consolidating some of the repetitive notions on the economy. The end result, I think, was satisfactory to both of us. It gives a fair view of Reagan's presidency. It mentions his economic policies without any bias of implication (prior to the change it explicitly credited economic expansion to his policies ) as well as his Cold War policies; while mentioning the soaring budget deficits, linking to the scandals page, and explicitly mentioning Iran-Contra.
Right now, the intro reads like a simplistic bullet point timeline on the War on Terror. It should be expanded to incoporate more of Bush's presidency and fairly include the criticisms without turning into another "bash Bush" page. Again, those criticisms might be highly appropriate and warranted, and they should be acknowledged on this page. But they should also be done in a way that appears academic and neutral. SpiderMMB 00:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As an example of a comprehensive overview, here is what the intro looked like in late 2006, before people starting tweaking it:
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001. He was re-elected in the 2004 Presidential election and is currently serving his second term. He formerly served as the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. A Republican, he belongs to one of the most politically influential American families, being a son of former president George Bush and elder brother to Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida. Supporters and detractors alike refer to him by the nickname, Dubya, playing on a stereotyped and generalized Southern pronunciation of the letter W.
Bush was an entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas, and owned an oil-drilling company called Arbusto, which means bush in Spanish. He was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, and after working on his father's presidential campaign, he purchased a share of the Texas Rangers baseball team. In 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas where he worked on education reform, school finance reform, tort reform and sponsored the largest tax cut program in Texas history. He was re-elected as governor of Texas in 1998. Bush won the 2000 presidential election as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest. Although he did not secure a majority of the popular vote, he did win the required number of electoral votes after a very close battle in the state of Florida. As President, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program and the No Child Left Behind Act, and has made efforts to privatize Medicare and Social Security. Bush has also pushed for socially conservative efforts such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, faith-based welfare initiatives, the Palm Sunday Compromise and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
Follwing the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global War on Terrorism and ordered the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan which he publicly stated was in order to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda and to capture Osama Bin Laden. In March 2003, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force.[9]. Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Bush committed the U.S. to establishing democracy in the Middle East, and specifically in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the short term.
A self-described "war President",[10] Bush won re-election in 2004 after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority vote in 16 years.[11] Since his re-election, he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandals, as well as domestic issues such as federal funding of stem cell research, Hurricane Katrina, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, record budget deficits, the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, and a number of scandals, such as the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal and the Plame CIA leak controversy. According to opinion polling, his popularity has declined.
SpiderMMB 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
See, now that looks pretty good to me (although there are a few references needed in spots). Most of the rampant destruction in the intro was left in the wake of continual POV back-and-forth over whether or not Iraq had WMDs. For purposes of the intro, can we change the third paragraph to look like this (emphasis added to show edits):
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global War on Terrorism and ordered the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (snip) to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda, and capture Osama Bin Laden. In March 2003, Bush ordered the controversial invasion of Iraq (snip) (keep ref here). Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Bush committed the U.S. to establishing democracy in the Middle East, and specifically in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the short term.
The Iraq war is too complex to describe in the intro due to its controversy, so why not simply acknowledge the controversy and refer readers to another article which more fully describes that controversy? --DachannienTalkContrib 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Ok, so you are basically proposing this:

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001. He was re-elected in the 2004 Presidential election and is currently serving his second term. He formerly served as the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. A Republican, he belongs to one of the most politically influential American families, being a son of former president George Bush and elder brother to Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida. Supporters and detractors alike refer to him by the nickname, Dubya, playing on a stereotyped and generalized Southern pronunciation of the letter W.
Bush was an entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas, and owned an oil-drilling company called Arbusto, which means bush in Spanish. He was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, and after working on his father's presidential campaign, he purchased a share of the Texas Rangers baseball team. In 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas where he worked on education reform, school finance reform, tort reform and sponsored the largest tax cut program in Texas history. He was re-elected as governor of Texas in 1998. Bush won the 2000 presidential election as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest. Although he did not secure a majority of the popular vote, he did win the required number of electoral votes after a very close battle in the state of Florida. As President, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program and the No Child Left Behind Act, and has made efforts to privatize Medicare and Social Security. Bush has also pushed for socially conservative efforts such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, faith-based welfare initiatives, the Palm Sunday Compromise and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
Follwing the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global War on Terrorism and ordered the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda and to capture Osama Bin Laden. In March 2003, Bush ordered the controversial invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.[12]. Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Bush committed the U.S. to establishing democracy in the Middle East, and specifically in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the short term.
A self-described "war President",[10] Bush won re-election in 2004 after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority vote in 16 years.[11] Since his re-election, he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on foreign issues such as the Iraq War, the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandals. His domestic popularity has decreased as well[13] due to both the war and other issues such as federal funding of stem cell research, Hurricane Katrina, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, record budget deficits, the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, and a number of scandals, such as the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal and the Plame CIA leak controversy.

I think the last paragraph could also be improved. It's important to list those criticisms but it reads like a laundry list and is not encyclopedic. I tweaked it a little bit but am open to suggestions. SpiderMMB 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the second paragraph throws in a bunch of positive things he's done, so having a bunch of negative items in the fourth paragraph seems only fair. If anything, maybe pare out the less important things from each (Jack Abramoff and Valerie Plame seem like good candidates to be cut since they're more related to the Bush Administration than to Bush himself). Also, it's unclear how his position on stem cell research affects his popularity, since it's a controversial issue rather than a scandal or a disaster. --DachannienTalkContrib 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

lost the popular vs didn't secure a plurality

I'll make this point once: it is better to use simple, clear language when writing an encyclopedia article, to maximize comprehension. In 2000 Bush lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote, thereby winning the election. That is a simple statement that is easier to understand than that he "did not secure a plurality" which some will not understand. You can't say he didn't get a majority, because you don't have to get a majority - you have to get a plurality - if you know what that means. So why not avoid the confusion and say it the way everyone will understand: he lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, thereby winning the election. Why is that a problem other than you don't want to use the word "lost"? He did lose the popular vote, it is a fact, but he won the election. Like Harrison, as explained further down in the article. I don't see why anyone would insist on using more complex language when there is very simple language available to us. That's good writing, not dumbing down. Tvoz |talk 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


====

I agree with you, but I would further argue that not winning the popular should only be a footnote. Like it or not the Electoral College is the method used to determine the winner; popular vote is only tangentally relevant. The article should strive for understanding of what the relevant issues are and the EC debate is not technically relevant to the outcome this particular election - only interesting trivia.

That said, it is appropriate to mention that the election results did revive the debate of the Electoral College v. Popular Vote. There should be a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College, an article discussing the general issue including the outcomes of the 2000, 1888, 1876, and 1824 elections.

Your thoughts?

CWO

I removed the popular vote clause as you are right it doesn't matter. In fact, if Bush wanted to win the popular vote, he could have campaigned in Texas to get every last person to vote for him, etc. KeithCu 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As with any encyclopedia article, I think whether or not to include the popular vote comment should be measured as a matter of how closely related it is to the topic of the page, Bush. I think in the very least, his revival of the electoral college vs. popular vote debate is notable, and since it only takes a few words more to explain how he revived the debate, it should be mentioned.

====

Brookings Inst. quote

While I happen to share the Brookings Institution's opinion, I believe this section is unencyclopedic. We are treating the National Intelligence Estimate, which is a diverse organization that reflects bipartisan intelligence consensus and reports directly to the president, and the Brookings Institution, one of the leading conservative think tanks, as if they were equivalent authorities. While I believe the BI quote was added to 'balance' the NIE report, I actually think such 'balance' is a violation of NPOV. the NIE already IS the balanced report, leaning, if anything to the center-right; the Brookings addition, therefore, is adding the conservative viewpoint to the centrist viewpoint while seeming to represent the other end of the spectrum. To sum up: 1) a false equivalency of authority, not to mention independence, is asserted between the BI and the NIE in quoting them in opposition; 2) the BI opinion, true or false, represents an additional right of center viewpoint, while masquerading as balance. I welcome any thoughts.Benzocane 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

References section

Please make it 2 columns instead of 18.--Oooei999 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of final paragraph of foreign perceptions section

This paragraph seemed to be about whether the Iraq invasion was justified in general. It did not specifically reference issues regarding Bush OR foreign perceptions, so it was out of place here and seemed redundant with other material. SlipperyN 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Trip to South America

Information about Bush's trip through South America in March should be added to the article. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is entirely useless - it provides no relevant information to anything. Presidents often go on trips around the world to strengthen ties with other countries, they're called state visits. Unless this trip has a clear and important affect on anything (which so far it hasn't) it should not be included. All the section says is that he is indeed performing at lease some of his duties as president. Therefore, I have removed it.--Mbc362 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mbc362 - I removed it the last time hetfield posted it and am removing it again. Please don't keep re-posting unless you get consensus. This is just a state visit and not notable. He's taken others. Tvoz |talk 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not just the state visit. Bush had his eyes on South America before 9/11. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You say that but you do not provide a citation in the text you posted. Unless you make a compelling case for why this trip is notable, it shouldn't be here. And please wait for consensus before adding it again. Also, you added it today with an edit summary marked "minor" - that was not a minor edit. Tvoz |talk 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. Sources: [3] [4] [5] --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You've still failed to describe how any of the text is notable enough to warrant inclusion. The US currently has poor relations with practically every other country and is trying to mend them. How is this any different?--Mbc362 13:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And I still agree with Mbc. Further, Hetfield, I don't exactly understand why on the one hand you seem to be interested in shortening the article, but on the other hand you keep insisting on adding this section which has not been shown to be notable. Tvoz |talk 15:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Irrelevant sections

This article is too long right now and it's going to get longer as people keep submitting information. I'm removing some irrelevant, off-topic sections from the article (see the article's history). --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You actually believe 9/11 and Katrina are irrelevant? [6] You must be joking. I can possibly see the Katrine argument, but 9/11? I don't think so. Just a few sections above this one, you request information be added about a trip to South America...how is that relevant but September 11, 2011 2001 is not? - auburnpilot talk 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Well, for starters, it hasn't happened yet. Seriously though, I think that we should keep 9/11 in here, and possibly cut trim Katrina. --LuigiManiac 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.... - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Errr, I would daresay these are two very critical, shaping events in the Bush presidency. Yes, the article is long, but there must be things to safely trim without out-and-out removing, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I must agree. There are certainly things that could be cut, but these two topics are fairly important. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
We can't add everything that is somehow related to Bush in the article because in that case we would have a 500 page book instead of an encyclopedic article, we should just add topics that are directly related to him. Neither 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina are. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
9/11 is absolutely directly related to Bush and his presidency. You may or may not have noticed, but he tends to mention it in every speech he makes and calls the event the defining moment in his presidency. To say it's irrelevant is a bit naive. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I'm still removing Hurricane Katrina, it wasn't a cause nor a consequence of his presidency. I'm also adding a {{split}} template to the article. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Trimming the section on Katrina is as far as I'm willing to compromise -- it should still be linked, even if it doesn't get a whole section. 9/11, however, is absolutely relevant, and I frankly have no idea how you can think otherwise. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Katrina is an extremely important part of Bush's presidency, as is 9/11. Neither should be taken out of the article. It would be like not discussing Pearl Harbor or the Great Depression in the Roosevelt article. If you want to trim the article, I'm sure you could find parts to remove that wouldn't have people jumping up and declaring their importance.

I am also oppossed to spliting the section. Frankly, I don't think many people knew about Bush before he became president and a biography article wouldn't be very long. There is only one section dedicated to the non-political part of his life. SpiderMMB 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Katrina isn't a cause or consequence. It is a vital event that occured during his presidency, and his handling of it is quite controversial. It must not be cut. Superm401 - Talk 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The response to Katrina was a major event in Bush's presidency and we can afford the extra few lines that give what happened then some context. I reinstated previous language. Once again, we do NOT need to cut material out of this article at present - the length is fine. This is a red herring. Tvoz |talk 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Split article

Since this article is too long and it is rather difficult to find something that isn't important enought to be in it, it should be split into his biography and his presidential terms. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article already has many offshoots (Early life of George W. Bush, Professional life of George W. Bush, George W. Bush as Governor of Texas, etc.) with associated sections; it doesn't need more. None of the sections needs to be more than 3 paragraphs (some can be shorter). Less important information can be moved to the existing sub-articles. Superm401 - Talk 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 12 daughter articles for the main George W. Bush page:

As such, I oppose splitting the main article, but fully support moving text to the sub-articles. There's also Bush Doctrine and List of books and films about George W. Bush, but they are not necessarily "daughter" articles. - auburnpilot talk 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

George W Bushis a very wise, brilliant president. However, i don't think he should have two pages, That would be pathetic - it would muck up Wiki. Wikipedians like Luigi30 think that it is bad to create pages onfree toast! I think this idea should just be put down - it is useless. REPUBLICANS FOREVER! Reevesgla1919 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^That comment directly above is very biased and I feel it does not follow Wikipedias Neutral Point of View rule.
Definitely, no splitting is needed or desired. Text moving, though? Certainly. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

Did I miss something? My last edit, we were at 101 kb. Now it's 91? What happened here? (*cheers*) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At the time, the page was trimmed down to 84 kb. I don't know if there's anything else left to trim, though. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Succeeded by Incumbent?

Why does it say "Succeeded by Incumbent"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.67.82.250 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

That box is a template, meaning that we can't change the "Succeeded by" text, only insert who succeeded him. As he hasn't been succeeded by anybody yet, we just insert "Incumbent", meaning that he is currently in office.--Mbc362 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Review of Economic policy

The current section on Economic policy leaves a lot to be desired. At least in my mind, it does not adequately address the tax cuts (it doesn't actually even mention that they were passed or that they were the largest in US history) nor the economy as a whole. It completely ignores the debate about the true effects of the tax cuts, the recession following 9/11, job growth throughout Bush's presidency, or Bush's record budget deficits.--Mbc362 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Article length and readable prose

This article may seem long, but I checked, and actually its readable prose is only 38K which is not so much longer than the guideline of 32K. See Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose". I think it's ok to trim, but we should be guided by whether a section feels like it should be a stand-alone daughter article, rather than distorting this article out of a misplaced concern that this article has to be cut. Given the subject, it's not so long, and the guidelines can accommodate it. So I think we should have better reasons for removing sections than that it's "too long". Let's try improving the article, just cutting it. Tvoz |talk 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The total size of the article is currently 79 kb. I was thinking we could cut it down to 70 kb and then keep an eye on its size since new relevant info will be added between now and 2010. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 21:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me - did you read the comment directly above yours? Or the section I highlighted from the relevant Wikipedia guideline? The only meaningful measurement is readable prose - and that means without footnotes, "see also ", crossreferences, captions, etc. The readable prose on this article is not 79K, it is 38K. The article does not need to be drastically cut down. Could you acknowledge this point please before going in and slashing more? Tvoz |talk 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that all of this trimming is ruining the relevancy of the article. I would suggest it be stopped soon, especially given Tvoz's reasoning. I would also ask you to reassess what you're cutting in light of the fact that you think a section on Bush's trip to South America should be added along with a Washington Post editorial suggesting he's the "worst president ever." The latter might be funny, and there was also a Princeton professor who wrote the same in Rolling Stone -- but I seriously question its encyclopedic relevance. SpiderMMB 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The article can be shorter without the need of removing actually relevant information. Even if the readable prose is not that much longer than expected, it will be with time as new information comes up and is added to the article. It's better to try to sum it up as much as possible now. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 02:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We're beginning to reach to point of no return, and should not be cutting to meet some arbitrary size recommendation. A notable, high interest subject will always have a longer article. That's simply the way Wikipedia has always operated. What's relevant needs to stay in, even if the article balloons back up to 110kb. The size is the least of our worries at this point. - auburnpilot talk 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, there's no need to remove actually relevant information. For example: there was a lot of stuff that was mentioned more than once in different parts of the article. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Hetfield, you don't seem to get it - this article was in better shape before the cuts started, and I think consensus here is that we need to stop cutting now and start rebuilding back to what we had - and then if it expands, so be it. We'll dweal with it as it happens. There will always be time to fork off sections into daughter articles if it becomes necessary - not just remove them wholesale. But now is not that time. And I agree with Spider and AuburnPilot's comments.Tvoz |talk 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've re-inserted most of the material that was removed by Hetfield1987 and that hadn't already been re-inserted. Frankly, most of the edits detracted from the quality of the article - they cut out relevant, sourced information, and did not enhance the readability of the article. I would ask that Hetfield1987 discuss any major edits before making them, as he has been reverted numerous times already in the past few days; it would save everyone a lot of time.--Mbc362 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There are rules about the size of the article, I'm sticking to them. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There's already a ton of subpages, I think it uses Summary style well. Aaron Bowen 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no rules about article size. There are recommendations, even suggestions, but there is not a single policy dictating the size of an article. If you take the time to read WP:SIZE, it states "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.". This is clearly the case here. Please stop butchering this article. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Hetfield, you're simply removing way too much stuff. The article's perhaps even smaller than it should be now, and tons of the (newly-restored) information you deleted was completely appropriate for this article. (Props go out to Mbc362 and other editors who re-inserted that information.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Seconded or is it thirded? I've lost count. :) Aaron Bowen 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, just make sure the size doesn't balloon up too high. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal/Rewrite

I havn't really done much in contributions to Wikipedia, but the third Paragraph seems really POV, and an edit seems to be in order

"After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism, from the people of the United States, many Democrats and many fellow Republicans, and is also subject to the an impeachment movement against him. His domestic popularity decreased[2] due to a failed handling of the Iraq War and other issues such as the slow Government response to Hurricane Katrina, the failure of the No Child Left Behind Act, the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, record budget deficits, the CIA leak scandal, the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys scandal and the Bush White House e-mail controversy; manipulated information concerning the story of the death of Pat Tillman and story of released POW Jessica Lynch, and the Black site controversy."

It seems to just cite every controversy, and seems very POV, should probably delete some, as there's already a controversy section Vladiator 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That can be found in the Criticism section. I'm removing that paragraph since it's POV.--Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubya

Because Dubya redirects to this article, I think it should be explained why. --HelgeStenstrom 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'Dubya' is a phonetic spelling of the word/letter 'W'. It is used to distinguish George Bush from his father. His father was the president before Clinton and did not have a 'W' in his name. This is a venacular rendition of the initial 'W'. In some cultures people are often called by the letter of their name. There was once a 'JR' in a sitcom called Dallas, he was called JR to distinguish him from his father. 'JR' might be rendered to JayR or Jayrr if it were spelled out phonetically. Since many people know of President Bush as 'Dubya' and otherwise have no idea what his actual name is they are redirected to the George W. Bush article. This requires less bandwidth than redundantly repeating everything from this article in the 'Dubya' article. DasV 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But the point HelgeStenstrom is stating is that what you just said should be somewhere in the article. And thank you for the explanation, I was always wondering where did the "Dubya" nickname came from. Shinhan 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's in now. Tvoz |talk 23:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned on the talk page of Dubya that it might be better suited to redirect to List of United States Presidential names. --66.41.102.194 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Dubya is not the phonetic spelling of W. Aaron Bowen 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My bad I thought he said it was the phonetic spelling of W. Aaron Bowen 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is Locked?

"His domestic popularity decreased[6] due to the war and other issues such as Hurricane Katrina, wiretapping of suspected terrorists, record budget deficits, and scandals affecting the administration."

Pardon, WHAT? Does this have a source?

Of course not, this is, after all, Wikipedia.

So are people reading this to understand that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina?

And how did the 'wiretapping of suspected terrorists' go from being a POSITIVE achievement to one which gets grouped in by the partisan individual who locked this article as a negative?

Record budget deficits? Again: Source??

Scandals affecting the administration. SOURCE???

I guess I misunderstood, I thought this was a user-edited encyclopedia? Why is this encyclopedia locked? Who is the mystery individual who locked this encyclopedia?

Will somebody tell this please tell this mystery author that there are errors, and kindly ask him or her to edit the page? Go about it in the same fashion as one would ask a traditional encyclopedia author to correct a published mistake, I suppose.

The introduction is usually a summary of material that is expanded upon later on in the article - look there for the sources. Its a bit of a stretch to assume that people will think Wikipedia is claiming Bush caused Katrina, but I'll change the wording if you think it needs to be clearer. The NSA wiretapping controversy was never a "positive achievement," many people feel that it constitutes grounds for impeachment. This specific article is semi-protected, meaning anonymous users and new users cannot edit it; this is done to reduce vandalism. If you wish to edit, simply create an account and wait four days.--Mbc362 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Good god, create an account like the rest of us! 64.246.144.52 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Maytrixink

education

Lets include info in the infobox about his college education. very necessary info

Too many pictures

The Foreign policy section has too many pics clogged up on the sides. Do you think some of them could be removed? --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that they should be moved or removed so that the text is not squeezed like it is now. Also, the article loads too slowly, in my opinion. I have a 10 Mbps connection and it takes about 30 seconds to load the article (the first time, as it loads faster in subsequent loads due to caching). I think that some pictures should be removed or some or all should be made smaller (to get the full size, you just click on them). If the pictures are removed, people could be directed to the George W. Bush category on Commons. It has many pictures of him. We do not seem to have a picture category of him on Wikipedia, though. Also, it seems like many of the pictures on Wikipedia are poorly categorized. One picture was just in a category of U.S. government images. -- Kjkolb 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New Category?

Since Category:Clinton Administration personnel was recently created, would it not be appropriate to create a similar category for Bush and other recent presidents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wassermann (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

People seriously need to have some marginal sense of maturity

Someone has been messing with the President George W. Bush article, while I am trying to locate information. The message that replaced the real article is clearly the act of someone who lacks intelligence and maturity. I would very much appreciate the staff at Wikipedia if they would get a handle on this insolent stupidity that seems to be rampant among the viewers and restore the article. I would also appreciate it if Wikipedia would put a lock on the editing of the page to keep them from screwing with it again, at least for some time. As for whomever got in the way of my research--and others', im sure-- by projecting your own immaturity onto Wikipedia, find another way to make your point about the political situations. Doing things like what you did to the article only concludes your lack of intelligence and maturity, making your point null in the eyes of everyone else. Don't make a fool of yourself again. I would thank the guys at Wikipedia for a speedy fix to the article. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.65.190.167 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

It seems to have been fixed almost immediately, after only 18 seconds. (see here). - auburnpilot talk 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

Why is Trivia not a section in the page? Tony Blair's page has got a trivia section. Interesting facts such as his participation on the secret society Skull and Bones along with John Kerry and others are relevant to who he is. People need to realize that wikipedia should not be taken so seriously as a source of factual knowledge. Most universities of any value do not accept wikipedia as reference points or in the bibliography due to the nature of its sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.204.109 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is long enough. Brianga 09:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No good article in the history of Wikipedia has ever had a Trivia section. If I'm not mistaken, that's actually one of the requirements to be a featured article: not having a trivia section. They're useless sections whose information could just as easily, and in fact should be, placed into the article proper. 68.60.11.184 09:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I replaced {{WikiProjectBanners}} with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} which supports |blp= for the notice required for Biographies of living persons and |activepol= likewise for active politicians. In order to do this, I had to edit the banners for Wikiprojects Connecticut and U.S. Presidents to support nesting. Taric25 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons given for declining popularity

The last sentence of the intro currently reads: His domestic popularity decreased[7] due to the war and other issues such as the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy and record budget deficits affecting the administration. A citation is given for the low popularity, but as far as I can tell the reasons given (Iraq, Katrina, NSA surveillance, budget deficits) are unsourced speculation. Am I missing something? It seems to me that we should either provide verifiable reasons for the popularity decline or not list any reasons at all. - Walkiped (T | C) 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically especially since this is a BLP yes. However practically, it isn't uncommon that for a prominent politician we tend to ease up on BLP and bit and we leave in details which can probably be sourced, but haven't been yet, as is not uncommon in wikipedia. I wouild just fact tag it and then leave it as is, but it's up to you Nil Einne 16:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks. - Walkiped (T | C) 02:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Harboring a known terrorist in Florida?

Why is there ample information on recent developments of Cuban and Venezuelan requests for the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles, a known terrorist on the CIA's payroll from 1976-????, recently arrested and released in Florida, and who is currently at large in Florida in all the relevant places EXCEPT the article on George W. Bush? Recently declassified FBI documents list him as an associate of Orlando Bosch, whom George H.W. Bush pardoned in 1990 despite being convicted in Venezuela with Posada for the Cubana jet bombing in 1976 and against the recommendations of the National Security Agency. There is info on all of these documents and the Cuban and Venezuelan extradition requests in articles on the bombing itself, Posada Carriles, Bosch, George H.W. Bush, and Jeb Bush. Isn't it OBVIOUS that something needs to be added under George W. Bush since this story has been reported in every news outlet domestic and foreign and the National Security Archives has obtained declassified FBI documents through FOIA as recent as May 8, 2007? Isn't it logical for there to be a section under George W. Bush regarding this recent development considering it completely shatters the "Bush Doctrine" of "those who harbor terrorists are treated as terrorists?" These developments were first reported domestically and globally in March 2005 and again on May 11, 2007 following requests for extradition from Cuba and Venezuela. Pistolpierre 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See Luis_Posada_Carriles ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Perceptions

"Bush was openly condemned by current and former international leaders such as Gerhard Schröder, who was accused of taking bribes from Hussein, Jean Chrétien, who was accused of taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, Mohammad Khatami, who served as President of a terrorist nation, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who withdrew his support from Iraq only to then have his country victimized by terror attacks, Romano Prodi, Paul Martin, and notably Hugo Chávez, who has since dissolved the parliament of his country, seized the press, seized industry, and declared himself leader for life."

This does not seem neutral, nor are there any references to back up these statements. I recommend that this be deleted. Lwdjaymac 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism- will someone restore it please?

Page has been vandalised- just reads "Bush is gay" or something. As a newly registered user, I can't fix it. Can someone else please do so?

{{editprotected}}

I added the editprotected template. Hopfully this will get an admin's attention so they can fix the vandalism. JaggedFel568 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's already been fixed. If you are still seeing the vandalized version, you may need to clear your browser's cache. You should be able to do that by clicking here; this will purge the GWB page. - auburnpilot talk 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct version is showing up now. Thanks :) JaggedFel568 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry- didn't realise about the cache thing. wonk123

There is a line that says "What do you get when you mix a Bush with a cheny ... One Fucked up country". I can't figure out how to remove it. It really has no place in this artice. dstout66