Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 56

6.2.7 Foreign Perceptions - Adding News of End of Bush Presidency
Pravda headline after 08 election of Obama: "Eight Years of Hell Are Over, " is this worth citing? VictorC (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would it be? A newspaper in a semi-hostile country expresses an opinion hostile to the current administration? Stay me with flagons!  -- Zsero (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. My mistake. I meant the next section "6.2.7 Foreign Perceptions," having to do with the opinions of other nations towards President Bush, and it begins: "President Bush has been criticized internationally and targeted by the global anti-war and anti-globalization campaigns, particularly for his administration's foreign policy..." At least half the section has to do with how unpopular he is internationally, and it looks like the latest citation was from '07. Excuse my typo. I've updated the header here. I think this is the purpose of this entire section. I was mainly interested in seeing about updating the section with a current citation. It's pretty clear the section is about how countries that have disfavor towards President Bush. VictorC (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that ANY foreign media outlet should NOT have their views of a current US president be included in that president's WP article. It is not relevant to the life of that president, in this case, George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.34.86 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that he has attracted such vicious hatred is a significant part of his biography. I don't think any president has been so hated, by some, since at least FDR.  But it's difficult to handle it in an encyclopaedic manner, and without giving it undue weight. Come to think of it, I should check FDR's article, and see how it's handled there.  -- Zsero (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not, FDR was near mythical and is considered by most historians to be among the best 2-5 US Presidents. By the same token (and using the same scales) Bush comes off as a lightweight.  Not even in the same league.  By the same token, those horribly biased bastions of the liberal education elite typically rank Regan in the top 10 and Clinton somewhere in the middle.  Truman who was almost as unpopular as Bush ranks in the top 10 as well because of what he did.  I suspect Germany and Japan probably were none to fond of FDR, but that's to be expected now isn't it?  Our allies were quite fond of FDR.  Our Allies are quite... upset with Bush.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FDR had his worshipers who thought he was a saint and could do no wrong. But he also attracted virulent hatred, much like the extraordinary hatred we've seen over the past 8 years against Bush, and more recently against Palin. There were many Americans who couldn't even bring themselves to pronounce FDR's name, and would just call him "that man".  I don't think any president between them has attracted quite that level of hatred.  And the existence of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is indeed a notable part of his biography, it's just hard to handle in a NPOV fashion.  -- Zsero (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To keep this short, BDS is a term most often tossed around by conservative pundits to explain why liberals are so stupid so we should steer clear of it unless its handled perfectly and I doubt that between the two of us we would ever get a satisfactory version of it on the page. Bush is already mentioned as being the least popular US President ever, and as far as the data goes that is probably true.  I'm not entirely unsure we haven't mentioned the massive unpopularity of Bush enough times in the article, may I suggest a header of "He's a very bad man" and then like a few thousand cites? Se could make them into a frowny face or something.  On a more serious note, pop something in here and we'll look at it.  That's basically all we can do.  RTRimmel (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonononono. No. This has nothing to do with his low popularity numbers, and I can't imagine what would make you think it does.  Most of the people who don't like his performance liked it just fine 4-6 years ago.  They didn't start hating him, they just changed their assessment of his performance.  They don't call him Bushitler or Chimpy, they don't accuse him of war crimes or call for his arrest or impeachment, they don't think he had anything to do with the 11-Sep-2001 attacks, they don't think he's corrupt or a liar, they just think he screwed up. They don't pretend to think they're in danger of being arrested and dragged off to Gitmo for criticising him, and they don't call his mother and wife and daughters filthy names, or claim that he's the granson of Alistair Crowley.  They think he mismanaged the economy and the war, but they don't think he's a bad person, and they certainly don't hate him.  But there is a small but significant minority who truly hate him, with a passion rarely seen in American politics; those are the people who have Bush Derangement Syndrome.  And I don't think that level of hatred has been seen in America since FDR.  Palin attracted a similar level of hatred, though.  And I said that while it's significant and in principle ought to be covered in the article, it would be very difficult to do in a NPOV way.  I'm certainly not about to try. -- Zsero (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting the Template Name Right
The template is Template:Infobox Person.

Under Parameter, name, it states the following: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name).".

Name use, identity, here should reflect what's found in our secondary and tertiary reliable sources. Is George W. Bush not his common name found in these sources? There is no reason Bush and/or other US presidents should be treated any differently than senators, big city mayors and Nobel prize-winners. Its undue weight. The guideline provides consistency for all biographical subjects. There are other practical considerations too which I can discuss, as there has been extensive discussion on this issue on the Barack Obama talk page due to his new status as President-Elect.

I changed the template to the default accordingly (although I forgot to fill in the birthname parameter), but an editor (presently blocked for edit-warring at Barack Obama) came behind me and reverted my good faith edit. Modocc (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no, it isn't Infobox Person, it's Infobox Officeholder. And the doc there doesn't say which name to use.  If you're not even looking at the right template, that should caution you about making sweeping pronouncements on what should go in it.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said at Talk:Ronald Reagan, this was being discussed at Talk:Barack Obama where it became a big issue because of negative connotations surrounding Obama's middle name of Hussein. I contributed to that discussion quite a bit, but left as it seems that there will never be a consensus regarding the matter. All that I want is for everything to be consistent. Happyme22 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * @Zsero, I’ve been very busy. Hopefully, I’ve said nothing too sweeping. Happyme22 did inform me in a previous discussion of the officeholder template. Infobox Person is the default template for these infoboxes, which does define parameters. As the default, the Person template sets precedence or a norm (or is irrelevant I suppose, depending on how you look at it), especially since these share basic parameters such as the person's name. Thus, on the whole, the shear absence of parameter documentation on the officeholder template page is noteworthy (which I applaud), but it is not the only fact under consideration. More importantly, titling the subject with a full name, when secondary and tertiary sources generally do not, is not due weight (weight considerations apply to all aspects of a subject). Modocc (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Succeeded by ?
Someone feel like filling in Obama in the relevant slot?  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not until Obama takes office, as we have agreed. See the relevant discussion on this talk page, at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:List of Presidents of the United States.  Newguy34 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit
This sentence was gramatically incorrect. Original version (bold type shown here for purposes of highlighting only: Bush portrayed himself as a compassionate conservative. He campaigned on a platform that included increasing the size of the United States Armed Forces, cut taxes, improve education, and aid minorities. Corrected version: Bush portrayed himself as a compassionate conservative. He campaigned on a platform that included increasing the size of the United States Armed Forces, cutting taxes, improving education, and aiding minorities.

--Mrs rockefeller (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion!
Please change 2 Methodist Christian (UMC) please thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.77 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? What's wrong with United Methodist?  -- Zsero (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * United Methodist is correct. When GWBush married Laura, he switched from Presbyterian to her denomination, the United Methodist Church. - auburn pilot   talk  05:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought he was Episcopalian before he married Laura? Oh well, it doesn't really matter. Happyme22 (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to The Faiths of the Founding Fathers by David Lynn Holmes, Bush was raised in both the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches. He attended St. Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston before attending the First Presbyterian Church in Midland. When he met and married Laura, he then began attending the First United Methodist Church of Midland. To make things even more confusing, GWBush and Laura have been attending St. John's Episcopal Church since living in the White House. Easy enough, right? ;-) - auburn pilot   talk  06:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

too religiously biased to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.15.3 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of George W. Bush
Similar to Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Political positions of Barack Obama, i think we need a Political positions of George W. Bush article. If someone could please start that, thanks. : ].--cooljuno411 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea. I'd be willing to, eventually of course. It would be a lengthy project. Happyme22 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I created the page and put a sub-section with a "main article" link on this page, just like in Obama's and Clinton's main article. The new page is VERY stubby, I created it in hopes of getting the rock rolling.--cooljuno411 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of George W. Bush
Please help expand Political positions of George W. Bush.--cooljuno411 05:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab page
George W. is a dab page. It used to redirect here. Should it be moved to George W. (disambiguation), and the redirect reinstated? Rich Farmbrough, 03:04 23 October 2008 (UTC).


 * I think it's fine as is. Makes searching for other biographies with similar name easier.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Current President
George W Bush is not the current president==
 * Yes he is until January.129.67.157.174 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rumors and Facts
In the 2000 primary Bush's campaign "was controversial for the use of telephone poll questions implying that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child with an African-American woman" Bush's campaign started a rumor that Al Gore "invented the internet". Kerry was swiftboated. Its not like Bush has some sort of track record that indicates he played fair under any of his campaigns with Rove at the head and furthermore Rove is known to play dirty like this and Rove was his campaing manager during the Texas campaign. We have a cite that says what he did during his race for the Governorship of Texas and we can find multiple additional cites to back this. Exactally what is the problem? Is this any less noteworthy than the tactics he used in his other campaigns? When a rumor leads to a real election, then that rumor is noteworthy and we have rumors in both presidential races that were patently false that allowed Bush to win. Is the Governorship any different? RTRimmel (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In case you are wondering: "Would [they] be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if [they] knew her staff is dominated by lesbians." Which Rove denied allowed Bush to win, this Push Polling is similar to another: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Which Rove also denied. It should be noted that the first push poll is considered by some to the halmark of Rove's style, but we aren't talking about Rove here we are talking about fortunate and well funded concidences during Bush's campaigns which allowed him to win through underhanded methods. Both polls are a matter of public record. RTRimmel (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All well and good, except that the BLP is about George W. Bush, not Karl Rove or Karl Rove's campaign tactics. The Atlantic article cited, clearly centers on Karl Rove's ability to use dirty tricks to get his candidates elected.  The article does not assert that Karl Rove or GWB ever called Ann Richards a lesbian, merely that it was a rumor during the campaign.  Guilt by association is verbotten in BLPs, as is contentious, coatrack-type material.  I might suggest that these statements (which I have attempted to NPOV-ize a bit) are better suited to a BLP on Karl Rove or an article on the 1994 Texas Gubernatorial Election.  Newguy34 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Attempting to whitewash Bush's poltiical campaigning style does little to educate. It is not Rove's campaign, it was Bush's.  Bush has consistantly used these tactics in all of his campaigns.  RTRimmel (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about whitewashing, it's about following what Wiki has to say about BLPs. Newguy34 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * here It seems to me that tactics that got him elected as Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and President of the US would fall under that, you know what the wiki says about BLP's. RTRimmel (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And, The Magnificent Clean-keeper has helped us do just that with his recent edit. Case closed, IMO.  Newguy34 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any concerns left after this ? And by the way, a rumor is not a fact but spreading a rumor can be one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All is happy by me. I still don't think this particular info belongs in this BLP, but I won't object any further.  Newguy34 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then see it as a compromise. No one (including me) is always 100% conform and happy with articles in general. Being somehow "fine" or "ok" with it is as far as it gets most of the time. Happy Holydays, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's the best part of Wikipedia: we all have to compromise a bit to get along and get articles written.  Thanks for your help.  Newguy34 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So wait, just so I understand this Newguy34, when I mention Rove its bad because this is an article about Bush, not Rove, BUT when someone mentions that Congress is also at fault for not holding hearings, that should be included because the article is about Bush? And its removal is subtraction editing? Seriously? Can you explain the difference in standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jan 20
At what time on January 20 do we show Bush as no longer the incumbent? Exactly at noon, or otherwise?Saberwolf116 (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When Obama takes the oath of office. That should be at exactly noon EST. Happyme22 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What counts as having taken the oath, in other words, precisely when should the wording of this article change? Also, there are lots of wordings in the article text that suggest he is currently president, or speak from that perspective. Is someone laboring away at a new article that will comprehensively place him in the past tense? 86.128.239.96 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bush will cease being, and Obama will become, the President at noon of January 20. The oath isn't required for the transfer to take place. Obama's taking of the oath is necessary for him to exercise the Presidential powers. SMP0328. (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we be reviewing the "past tense" article now? Just to get ready. Also because personally I can't wait. :-) ViewFromTheWest (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Economic News
Tightened up the Economic section somewhat and replaced the outdated info with some more current stuff. We may want to revise the Many economists over to a simple statement that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression as it qualifies easily by any metric. RTRimmel (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately saying this recession is the worst since the Great depression would be incorrect. Just 14 years ago, the unemployment rate hit todays same percentage level. And far from the levels of 20% unemployment in the 1970's. The Torchbearer (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be correct if that were the only standard economists used to measure recessions. Unfortunately they don't. RTRimmel (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, the crisis occurred 7 years into Bush's term. It came as a shock to no one in the financial markets, though few could have properly estimated the depth of the crisis. Bush attempted to push the control of Fanny and Freddy over to congress, so they would be in control and ultimately would get the blame for their collapse. Congress said no, they were not nearly stupid enough and they well understood that it was going to hit the fan soon. The President of the US has a great number of rather large economic hammers, such as the Treasury, FDIC, controller of currency and the Federal Reserve that all can put a massive amount of control into the economy, as was each offices intent. And to be clear, Bush's people are in each office and each office reports to the PotUS. Bush is not solely responsible. But as individuals go, he is one of the most responsible because as individuals go his has a massive amount of power and as such there are a great number of faults that can be directly assigned to his person, his attitudes, and his viewpoint of economics and they deserve to go into this article. RTRimmel (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the section "In retrospect, "it would have helped for the Bush administration to empower the folks at Treasury and the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC to look at these issues more closely," said Vince Reinhardt, a former Federal Reserve economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization here. Reinhardt said it would also have helped "for Congress to have held hearings." In the source, they are forced together, in the actual quote they are responses to two different sections that are asked in two different portions of the conversation.  They are not related, which is why there is the space.  BLP doesn't really like us to mix up entirly unrelated things to ... what?  Whitewash?  Spread the damage?   It looks stupid, but if you want to keep it in I have a compromise.  RTRimmel (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you or I are either Reinhardt or the newspaper reporter, we will never know if the two statements were meant to be together or seperate. Neither of us (I assume you are not Reinhardt or the reporter) was sitting in the room, so we must rely on what is written within the four corners of the source.  So, the text in the BLP on this point, as it is now, is acceptable to me.  The article needs to be balanced.  What really happened and who is really to blame for the economic crisis is a very complicated matter, with "truth" nearly impossible to verify.  So, we are left with what comes from reliable sources and is presented in a manner that is balanced in the BLP.  Let's try to keep it to that?  Remember, the articles must reflect NPOV. Newguy34 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I've heard the full quote. I'll find the transcript.  They were unrelated and source merged them into a single paragraph.  Then someone merged them into a single sentence for the article.  So we spread them out.  My next question is what does a quote about congress that is not tangentially involved with Bush get into the article?  And I'm not saying Bush is a terrible evil man, I'm just listing what Bush has done and the powers that President's office has at hand and has used in the past against these sort of crisis.  Let the Facts speak for themselves, its in the NPOV section.  RTRimmel (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find the transcript, that would help. If it qualifies as a reliable source, even better.  Until then, though, the author of the source put them together in one paragraph, one sentence right after the other, so we have to assume they are related.  We'll have to live with that. Newguy34 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are applying non-existent context, but if it keeps you happy. Sentence 1 about Bush, sentence 2 about congress.  One would think that an article about Bush would have quotes about Bush in it. Paragraph is about where blame can be assigned.  Article is about Bush, and I'm not assigning blame to him as you seem to be, I'm just posting information about the crisis.   And do you really want to use two quotes were in the same paragraph right after each other and therefor they must be related as a standard?  I prefer to look at the text as written and draw my own conclusions. RTRimmel (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one you should worry about keeping happy; worry about yourself. The source cited contains a criticism of Bush, but must be balanced, lest we anger the Wiki NPOV gods.  You are not allowed (nor am I) to draw our "own conclusions" about what the cite was trying to say. They call that "original research" and it's a no-no.  Remember, verifiability matters to Wiki; the "truth" does not.  Truth is subjective.  Drawing our own conclusions is subjective.  We live by the Wiki rules or we don't participate in the project.  Newguy34 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Letting the facts speak for themselves is allowed under NPOV and in sections where the information is, in general, mostly negative that is the recommended way to do things. The sentence in question doesn't actually say anything, Congress holds hearings all of the time and unless we find further sources about what kind of hearings they should hold, it doesn't contain meaningful information.  That said, because of the lack of meaningful information, the sentence does not balance out POV so the thrust of your argument falls flat.  I'd find another quote, but last time I tried to find a pro-Bush expert on the economy it was a wild goose chase.  RTRimmel (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right: Congress does hold hearings all the time. And they didn't on this matter. The type of hearings is completely irrelevant. The person who said that did so to clarify that Bush is not the only one responsible for this mess, rather Congress could have held more hearings on the matter as well and done something with Bush's 2003 proposed regulation of the housing market. But that didn't happen. Like you said, RTRimmel, we can't ignore the facts. Happyme22 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With the exception that they did hold substancial meetings about the 2003 regulations of fanny and freddy. They said no, becaues Bush was trying to push off his responsiblitys and ultimatly blame onto the congress, I can sort of see which directly you are swinging.  The requests were not unanswered as you suppose, they were refused.  They didn't need to do more with Bush's proposed regulations, per source those regulations wouldn't have done much and further per the source Bush already had enough power through his existant offices to attempt to blunt this crisis. Congress did hold hearing about dozens of different financial topics ranging from the sub-prime mortgage crisis to the value of US currency in addition to both topics you suggested they didn't.  So the facts say they did hold hearings.  I don't discount congress' responsiblity in this mess, they passed several bills that are directly responsible for this mess, however that sentence says nothing and because of its location on the BLP of Bush it cannot be refuted because any source to refute it would be outside the scope of an article focused on Bush and should be deleted per Wiki policy on BLP. Further, to suppose that just Bush and just Congress were at fault leaves out a great number of people who helped cause this crisis.  In short, if I put in a refute to this I would expect any editor to delete it as being completly irrelevant to the article.  If you want to spread the blame about, and I don't honestly think anyone drops all of the blame on Bush, why not just say Bush was caught up in a terrible economic crisis that was not entirly of his own making and then cite the source which states that.  Heck, cite three or four, there are plenty of credible sources that says everyone is at fault.  And I don't blame bush for causing the economic crisis any more than I blame Bush for causing Hurricane Katrina, I think his response was a bit lousy and his preperation was lackluster but no matter what he did both were going to happen.  In the BLP for Bush, Bush's responses and attitutdes are important and Congress is not.   RTRimmel (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent added] You are exactly on point, RTRimmel namely "letting the facts speak for themselves is allowed" and, frankly preferred. Drawing our "own conclusions" is that with which I have the problem. Doing so in Wiki as editors is bad, very bad. And, there are plenty who are sympathetic to the plight that Bush is in, which IMO is partly his responsibility, partly Congress's, partly greedy loan brokers', partly...well, you get the idea. That RTRimmel thinks there are none, is exactly why fighting for NPOV is important. The rest of Happyme22's comments resonate with me, so I have no more on this subject for now. Newguy34 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering your attitudes in our discussion earlier NewGuy, I find your current position rather interesting. I have never said anything remotly like Congress is not at fault.  They are.  The sentence in question here doesn't say anthing of signficance.  It says that congress should have held hearings, which they were holding and have held since, concerning the 2003 regulations Bush proposed as well as Bush's efforts to push Fanny and Freddy's failures into the Congress' lap.  We can't expand the sentence into context that says what Congress should have done because its in a BLP for Bush.  We can't refute the sentence that Congress actually held hearings because its in a BLP for Bush.  And if I were to include what Congress did, either positivly or negativly, in refrence to this I would expect it to be removed because it has nothing to do with Bush. NPOV is important, but this is a BLP on Bush.  It would be far better to just say, Bush was not exclusivly at fault and that there were many factors and then point out a cite or two and get into what he was responsible for rather than say its Bush and Congress' fault.  You've forgotten the greedy loan brokers, hedge fund managers, oil speculaters, well, you get the idea. RTRimmel (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I can be of interest. And, for the record, I have never claimed what you may or may have not claimed.  My only request, is that quotes and other referenced material in a BLP be placed in the proper context, so as to aid NPOV.  On this point, I have been consistent.  If one can ensure proper context to aid NPOV, I am satisfied.  And, I have not forgotten the greedy loan brokers (who are clearly in my typed text above), hedge fund managers, et al.  They are represented in my comments above by "..."  So, can we move on?  You've introduced enough red herrings that it's hard for me to keep up in my limited mental capacity.  Newguy34 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In reference to RTRimmel's comment directly above Newguy's: While this BLP is about Bush, many factors need to be taken into account and presented in this article if we are to give a complete, yet abbreviated, version of what happened that led us to this mess. One or two sentences on the fact that this is not simply Bush's fault is in order; many other factors contributed to it, including Congress, CEOs, company executives, etc. Ignoring these while pointing out why and how Bush is at fault is not in order. Happyme22 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And the crowd replies, "Amen". Newguy34 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Newguy34 is right. Sure the casual reader can easily figure out that the scope of the text seperates the two and the second might be discussing congress and not Bush, but someone, somewhere might be confused.  On an unrelated note, why is there a sentence about Congress holding hearings here?  That's pretty non-specific if ever it was anything.  Congress holds hearings all the time, its like saying that they should do stuff(presumably about the economic crisis, but again you'd have to read the paragraph and understand basic context which we of course can't because that would be the dreaded OR).  So in short, we have a very detailed sentence in the Bush Bio describing what Bush could do as President of the US to combat the Crisis, and a sentence that says congress (an entirly different branch of Government no less) could have done stuff...  Yup, that's informative.  Sure it looks stupid.  Sure it breaks up the page.  Sure it doesn't educate anyone about Bush, but its NPOV because it spreads the blame to congress because they didn't do stuff.  (Of course, they actually DID hold hearings about this very topic no less, but you couldn't put that in the article because the article is about Bush, not Congress and this sentence deserves to be in the congress section).  A smarter editor might actually research and grab something that exonerates Bush somewhat for his failings here, but unfortunatly this is the Economic section and whatever strenghts Bush has elsewhere, they aren't in this section.  His entire economic theory has been widly discredited and all of the goals he was supposed to hit have floundered rather badly.  Its hard to find anything positive because its been mismanaged so badly.  But again truth is subjective, as are numbers which many NPOV edits seek to remove because the numbers dictate Bush has done a terrible job.  This is a BLP, folow the BLP rules.  The wiki has them. There is a discussing about them above and you are in it... ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.40.89 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

All well and good, except that the BLP is about George W. Bush, not Karl Rove Congress or Karl Rove's campaign tactics Congressional Hearings. The Atlantic International Herald Tribune article cited, clearly centers on Karl Rove's ability to use dirty tricks to get his candidates elected Bush's failures on the economic front. The article does not assert that Karl Rove or GWB ever called Ann Richards a lesbian, merely that it was a rumor during the campaign Congress is as responsible as Bush for the crisis. Guilt by association is verbotten in BLPs, as is contentious, coatrack-type material. I might suggest that these statements (which <I have attempted to NPOV-ize a bit) are better suited to a BLP on Karl Rove Congress or an article on the 1994 Texas Gubernatorial Election 2008 Financial Crisis.


 * ... Well, that's one way to put it. RTRimmel (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[arbitrary break for editing ease]
I happen to think that, although this is a BLP of Bush, some background information is necessary due to the fact that a complete picture of the economic turmoil would be impossible to write without it. It is a BLP of Bush, but in this instance we are focusing on Bush's presidency, specifically the economic trouble. In order to truthfully tell of the situation, we need to set up what happened, then turn the focus back to Bush and say what he has done. I've put the following in the article:

In December 2007, the United States entered the second longest recession post World War II, which included a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisis, soaring oil prices and a declining dollar value. In February, 63,000 jobs were lost, a 5-year record. To aid with the situation, Bush signed a $170 billion economic stimulus package which aimed to improve the economic situation by sending tax rebate checks to many Americans and providing tax breaks for struggling businesses. In September 2008, the crisis worsened. It can be attributed to a number of factors in housing and credit markets which emerged over many years, which include the inability of homeowners to make their mortgage payments, speculation and overbuilding during a boom in the housing market, poor judgment by borrowers and/or lenders, financial products that distributed and did not reveal the risk of mortgage default, monetary policy, and government regulation (or the lack thereof). As a result, the majority of the American banking industry was consolidated into three companies. Many economists and world governments determined that the situation became the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Additional regulation over the housing market would have been beneficial, according to former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Bush administration pushed for increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, though these requests were ultimately stymied by Congress. Vince Reinhardt, a former Federal Reserve economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, said that it would have helped "for Congress to have held hearings," and additionally, "it would have helped for the Bush administration to empower the folks at Treasury and the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC to look at these issues more closely." In September 2008, President Bush proposed a financial rescue plan to buy back a large portion of the U.S. mortgage market. In November 2008, over five hundred thousand jobs were lost marking the largest loss of jobs in the United States in 34 years.
 * Footnotes

My best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The context paragraph is a near repeat of the prior context paragraph.

In December 2007, the United States entered the second longest recession post World War II[81], which included a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisis, soaring oil prices and a declining dollar value.[82]
 * So I'd suggest either expanding ona key point or  two, or killing it.  We can just wikilink to the appropriate areas and hope the users follow them rather than duplicating existant information without additional detail.  The Stock market collapse at that point would be more significant than most of your points, and the stock market is not mentioned, and the information you included is in the prior paragraph and wikilinked to the appropriate sections.  I would suggest going back to that paragraph and adding in anything you believe was missed rather than your current approach.  You also accidently threw the quote about congress before the quote about Bush in the section so I flipped them around. Reinhardt is a former Federal Reserve Economist and his opinion about what congress should do is no better than yours or mine but the source has it listed after the quote where his expertise is relevant, and so we should to.  RTRimmel (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. First off, I disagree that the pragraph about December 2007 says nearly the same as the paragraph going into detail on the causes of the financial crisis. In December, it was starting to get bad and that sentence explains why. Then we go onto September 2008, when it got really bad. Many factors which caused and/or complicated the problem are then listed, factors which became apparent after Fannie and Freddie and those problems came to light in September. I think the longer list of causes is essential to understanding the problem, and if I left something out then please free to add it. Links to other places without much background really isn't going to do it in this instance.


 * Second, regarding the quote from Mr. Reinhardt: I think the issue about the quote, when he said what, etc. is very much not an issue. I moved his quote about Congress above his quote about President Bush, simply because the sentence directly prior to it talked about how Congress left Bush's request unanswered. It would make more sense for the quote about Congress to come after the sentence about Congress, then say what Bush could have done. Apparently Mr. Reinhardt's quotes were said separately, so I don't see a problem, especially when the quote about Congress is relevant to the sentence immediately prior to it. Happyme22 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with that train of thought is that there are 4 articles that discuss the various issues that were happening in September and each have multi-paragraph headers to explain the problem. To do it any sort of reasonable justice, we are talking 15-20 sentences instead of 2-3.  Yours was a rehash of what happened in December, and were really not all that critical in September in the sense that they had already been discussed and were not the primary focus of why September was bad.  Three of your points were basically saying sub-prime mortgage crisis in various flavors and September was the financial crunch.  I could list a good 20 things in there that are all 'critical' and so I literally just took what happened that was most widely reported that happened in the first 2 weeks of September and used them.  Had I put the entire month of September in there the first paragraph would have been much much longer and still would not have been fully capable of educating a reader without going to the relevant sections.  I don't know how  you read wiki articles, but I certainly follow the hyperlinks on everything I'm curious about and this is not a paper encyclopedia where we have to give a poorly condensed supplement to a very complicated thing and pat ourselves on the back for it.  The section should be expanded further to cover the bailouts in more detail, but that's for later.


 * Mr. Reinhardt, you keep saying what is and what is not an issue with the quote. First is that he just said it and it was important to show that there was blame to go around, which was already mentioned in the December section, and now to reverse the order of the quote placing undue weight on Reinhard's non-expert opinion on congress.  In short, the quote about President Bush is a whole quote that is pretty straightforwards.  The congress quote is a partial quote of a sentence that really isn't that strong to begin with, it would be better to find a stronger quote but I honestly didn't see one when I went looking. The fact that it is about hearings and congress did in fact hold hearings, as mentioned earlier in the section, lowers the credibility of the quote about congress further.  Again, considering that we already have sections talking about who's fault it is I don't see why we need the throwaway quote about congress at all, but as you have insisted that we keep it we need to follow the source and jam it in the rear and draw as little attention to it as possible.  Further, the section on congress has been moved so the absolute need to put any more weight on the Federal Treasury expert's quote on congressional positions is hopefully minimal.  RTRimmel (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly and respectfully, I'm not following your train of thought. It definitely is possible to provide a concise summary of what caused the financial crisis. You keep saying that the article already talked about the causes before I added the material, which I am not able to find. If it did, I would not have added the material.


 * How is putting the Congressional quote by Mr. Reinhardt, which you yourself said was said at a different time than the quote on President Bush and the Treasury, before the quote on Bush giving undue weight? It's placing material next to relevant material. It would be a problem if Reinhardt said, "Bush could have empowered the treasury and Congress could have held hearings" and we wrote "Congress could have held hearings... Bush could have empowered the treasury". But such is not the case.


 * I see that you have added some other information, too. "...though these requests were ultimately passed by the House, but failed to gain traction in committee hearings while in the Senate." How does this support that hearings were indeed held in the Senate? I see that it passed the House, but it doesn't support the part about the Senate. It is better to say that the request went unanswered by Congress, Congress failed to do anything, etc. This says it was more than increased regulation, rather it was the most significant regulatory overhaul since the Savings and Loan Crisis.


 * More editor input is needed. This is an important part of the article and more people besides you and me need to be working on it.


 * May I suggest something? Why don't you and I and whoever else hash out something here on the talk page before adding to the article. We've both been guilty of not doing that before, but from experience, it is easier to reach compromises. And if you found flaws in my proposal, would you like to propose one of your own? Sound good? Happyme22

(talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The text you wrote was POV towards the sub-prime and housing market corrections which a number of experts will disagree with in terms of their signifigance in September even if what you had said was not a rehash of the prior paragraph. The jury is not out as to what is exactally most important here, and to include all relevant viewpoints that can be sourced and considered non-fringe would take more text than its worth here when we can easily link to the sources within wikipedia to find consise 5 paragraph or so summary of the 4 or 5 parts of the crisis that are most relevant here.


 * Mr. Reinhardt is not a congressional expert. The source does not indicate that.  His bio does not indicate that.  If he had a quote "Bush could have empowered the treasury and Congress could have held hearings" it would not even be on this page.  Frankly and respectfully, anything he says about Congress carries no weight.  His opinion on what Federal Agencies should have done under any President, who happened in this case to be Bush, however does as that is what his expertise is in.  Find another quote from a Congressional expert who says what Congress should do rather than taking a non-expert and propping it up.


 * The source I've listed is from 2005. They had committe's over the proposed regulations for 2 years so saying Congress did nothing is rather simple minded considering it survived a full floor vote in the house and passed.  Saying that they went unanswered is also rather inaccurate as when the failed the first time Congress explained why, and they were debated over again the next year, and again in 05.  We could say Congress debated these proposed regulations extensivly over a 2 year period before the regulations languished during hearings of the senate finance committe, never making it to the floor of the Senate for a full vote after passing the House with measured bi-partisan support.  The problem with comprehensive reforms is that they are the least likly to pass, and proposals such as these die in the Congress all the time.


 * Other people have been working on it, however given the exacting standards that are being employed in this section I can see why many editors would probably prefer to avoid it. 15:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Political positions
Typically articles like political positions of Hillary Clinton were forked off of existing articles, which made it easy to present material in the article in summary style. In the current case, there is no article on which to base a section here (save for a poorly-referenced partisan stub). If you are serious about starting a new section, then you will first post a sandbox link here on talk for discussion. Otherwise it is likely to continue to be reverted. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize till now that he doesn't have a "political positions" sub (or did he had one and it was scrubbed? Don't wanna go thru almost 8 years of article history to find out but maybe some one can provide this information?). Anyway, he definitely should have such a sub article (which than later can be cut down to summary-style and fitted here, but my guess is, it will be to long to fit it here and still being comprehensive enough. Makes it easy to read and will (and should) be clean-cut without editorial remarks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is one: Political positions of George W. Bush. It needs major work, however, and a lot of citations. I'd be willing to help out. As for writing about his political positions in this article, I'm not so sure that is a wonderful idea at this point. The presidency section consumes much of the article, which isn't a big problem (same is true at FA Ronald Reagan), except that it leaves little room to write on other topics. Happyme22 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good Lord, if there is such an article let's just improve it. Wondering now about some editor starting this section. S/he just confused me :)  --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I was referring to persistent attempts to create an empty section here linking to the so-called "main article" Political positions of George W. Bush. As of this writing the so-called main article needs some major scholastic attention before it is ready to be incorporated here, and I think the above opinions are in accord with this assessment. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 00:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. That makes more sense now. So let's enhance the sub as user:Happyme22 suggested (and sorry, but you have to count me pretty much out on this since I don't have enough time for major edits) and then keep a nice section here in summary style. That is your (reasonable) concern and request, right?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I understand. Thanks for the clarification. Happyme22 (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Logic error?
"Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest for a victorious incumbent President up for re-election since Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in 1916."

How does that make any sense? This is in his 2004 term section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.85.227 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The margin by which President Bush was reelected was the smallest since President Wilson was reelected. 2.5% is smaller than 3.1%. Does that help? SMP0328. (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it fails for the same reason the text in the article does. Statements of this form are used when the preceding example is more extreme, not less, than the current one (e.g. "Bush's margin was the smallest since Wilson's victory by a single vote"). If there is no earlier, smaller margin, the text should be changed to "Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest in history." Does that help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.243.79 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also mention that he received more votes then any presidential candidate in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm sure the Obama page will be updated shortly with his 69 million votes, 7 million more than the 2nd highest vote getter ever, George W Bush. Obama's successor is likely to get even more votes than him! Just like nearly every other president in US history. My oh my, stop the presses, every 4-8 years we have an amazing first that has never happened before, right on schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.40.89 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering how the country has greatly increased in population and the expansion of the franchise, saying who has received the most popular votes for President isn't noteworthy and would be deceptive. For example, how many popular votes would George Washington have received if the same number of people who voted for President in 2008 did so in 1789. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As has been mentioned repeatedly by everyone, the increase in population has far more to do with the most votes ever than anything else. If Obama or the President after him somehow managed to get an utterly overwhelming margin that looked like it had a snowball's chance of staying a record for more than 8 years I could see it, an 80-20 split with a candidate getting 100 million votes or something, but short of that highly unlikely circumstance I don't see the point.  RTRimmel (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Should it say who he is preceeding?
Obama's page said who he is succeeding (Bush), could it hurt to add "proceeding" to the page? 24.233.111.100 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a parameter in the infobox that we will add on January 20, 2009 that says he was suceeded by Barack Obama. But until then, he's still the president. Happyme22 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

 * Bush pardons 14 and commutes 2 prison sentences CaribDigita (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bush has only issued about half the number of pardons as the last two two-term presidents (Reagan and Clinton), so its possibly noteworthy from that standpoint, but we'd need to wait until the end of his term before we can know the true number. - auburn pilot's   sock  05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's noteworthy, worth about a sentence or two. One if its just for the total number of pardons and a mention of the reduced number provided unless he does alot at the end of his term like some presidents. Another for any noteworthy pardons, like Scooter Libby and anyone else that has been in the news. RTRimmel (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be in its own section and kept up to date, as events warrant. SMP0328. (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this is noteworthyWashington95 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Every president pardons people and Bush has issued less pardons than Clinton and Reagan. Nobody especially noteworthy was pardoned. Maybe a sentence or two, but not a whole section. Happyme22 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the goal of this site is to give as much info as possible, so we should try to find as much info about his pardons as we can then put it into the article,Washington95 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. There is a policy/guideline that we use on Wikipedia called undue weight, meaning that we have to write about topics in articles in accordance with many factors, including overall relevance to the subject, importance to the subject, etc. Clinton's pardons in his last days in office are more noteworthy than those of President Bush in his last days (unless Bush does something drastic), which is why you may find more about Clinton's pardons in his article than you will about Bush's pardons here. Same goes for George H. W. Bush. As I said before, however, I think a sentence or two on his pardons is in order. Happyme22 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree do you think you could whip something up because I am new here and don't know how.Washington95 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe create List of people pardoned by George W. Bush? There already is: List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton travb (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Opps, nevermind, already created...travb (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Shoe throwing incident
The horror! The horror!

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/14/bush-iraq-shoe/

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/shoe.jpg

--Xenovatis (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is completely irrelevant to Bush's biography. If Bush had been injured and taken to the hospital, etc. then it would definitely be relevant. But such was not the case. It was a minor incident that will go away in the news after today or tomorrow and is not notable. Happyme22 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing going away is Bush.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What? If your intentions are to be disruptive and bog down this page with your personal opinions, then please stop. If you seriously think this belongs in the article, then please outline why. Happyme22 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit conflicted. On one hand, I quite agree with Happyme22 that this isn't particularly notable from the standpoint of encyclopedic content, and that it would probably be better suited for Wikinews. But on the other hand, how often does a supposed journalist stand up in a press conference, take off his shoes, and throw them at a current US president? It's a bit trivial, so I'd wait a few days to see what, if anything, comes of it. - auburn pilot's   sock  22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may also be relevant in light of his approval rating... or lack thereof... Dismas |(talk) 08:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoe ducking incident is still relatively fresh. I say lets wait for a few days...and see how the tv-public-internet reaction is. If it turns up into something big...then put it. Kinda like Tom Cruise's couch jumping incident which became a hit. -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 14:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When I heard what happened, the first thing I thought was, "I wonder if this is going to be put on Bush's page on Wiki..." So I came here to look.  I think I should be put on for a simple reason...Why not?  Its a fact that he had a shoe thrown at him...plus, the people were kind of slow to react...if someone can get a good two shoes at the president then thats pretty sad. If that had be a grenade or a gun the president wouldn't be with us right now.  Good job secret service people :) (I don't know if the guy was just mad or he accually thought that it might go down in history as an assassination attempt...)

Otaku Thief (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Otaku Thief

Perhaps not on this particular page, but it certainly worthy of an inclusion of a line or two. What the reporter did was actually a powerful, powerful insult. It's also interesting to consider what is going to happen to that reporter because of his actions. Nilzy (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI: Yes, the guy was indeed mad and felt insulted by Bush's speech when he was talking about how "great" everything was (going) etc while the reporter knew better and lost control. Throwing a shoe at someone wouldn't be a big deal here (at our standards) but over there it is as user:Nilzy stated a very strong and powerful insult, similar or worth than slapping someone's face. But I agree that we have to wait if it will be still notable in a few weeks if we ought to include this incident.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Add-on: Remember 2003 when they brought down Saddam Hussein's statue? The people where slapping and kicking it with their shoes, giving Saddam one of the biggest insults possible. And yes, even showing someone your shoe sole is insulting.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This event is certainly noteworthy due to the symbolism it represent as discussed on all major news networks. Tomjc (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it should be included, I'm still on the fence. But I certainly don't think it should have its own section. Also, it appears to have already been added to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, which seems a bit odd to me. - auburn pilot   talk  16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The event is not noteworthy. Most responsible news organizations ran it as an "also interesting" bit.  Newguy34 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That guy could've thrown a pencil at him and it would be in the news but WP is not news and again, as I already mentioned above, we have to wait and see what history makes out of it because WP also doesn't make history, WP informs about history. Is it so hard to have some patience and see what it will be let's say in a week or so?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Appendix: It certainly belongs in any written biography of him just because it happened and has importance but just not in an encyclopedia, written or online unless it stays in the news and they give it enough importance for us to include it and then, (but only then) in an existing section where it would fit in. It absolutely doesn't deserve an own section, that I can tell right now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Initially, I thought this was just plain ridiculous. But about halfway through reading these comments I'd thought that this may be notable since this is something that's probably never been done to a U.S. president before (or it's at least never been recorded). However, this is all from a Western perspective culturally. Since striking someone with a shoe appears to be a commonly recognized way of showing distaste from the reporter's culture, then this isn't really notable at all. This would hardly be the first time a person, or a journalist, has publicly shown disdain for a U.S. president. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd sit on it for a while, at least a week or two. It is a major insult and in the middle east the man is being held up as a hero.  If that sticks, its probably a worthwhile thing to mention but if it goes away after a week I can't see the signifigance.  Remember, this is not an encyclopedia of what America wants.  In the US throwing a shoe is meaningless (well, it can repersent gang territory or a dealer) but in Iraq both the shoes and the insult, being called a dog, are very serious insults.  And in Iraq, serious insults get people killed.  RTRimmel (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. This definitely will have to be included once things have solidified. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone reads this in five or ten years, will anyone care? I suspect not, which is the best barometer for leaving it out. Newguy34 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not the point at all! If we would go by that measure we could strip down almost every WP article. The point is how much importance it will get here in the US but also in other countries. It seems to get a lot more attention than I thought earlier so let's watch it and make up our mind when it's time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, simmer down. No, e-yelling please, what with the exclamation point and all.  Maybe, we ought to adopt my suggested measuring stick for all edits; that way we'll get truly encyclopedic information free of POV pushing and pop-culture "events of the moment."  But, that's just me.  I am, and have been, fine with waiting.  Newguy34 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, well after reading the Barak Obama page I checked and you consider his Obama's smoking noteworthy because it had 10.1 million google hits. I completly agree, but since "Bush Shoe" has 12.4 million hits, so by your logic it should definatly be included, right?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.40.89 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability of Wikipedia content is not judged by Google hits, my friend. Obama's drug use is certainly relevant to him, as he as talked about it numerous times. Bush's own addiction problems are covered in this article, events which he has talked about numerous times. As I've said before, we need to take a step back and wait a while to judge the overall notability of the event and relevancy to the subject (President Bush). Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually mainly pointing out that Newguy34 has a bit of a double standard on notability.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.40.89 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent added] No double standard here ANON, "Obama smoking" on Google, gets 10,900,000 hits, while "Bush shoe throwing" gets about 1,200,000. So, I'm not sure where you get the ammo to attempt an attack on me, but all is forgiven. Because, google hits really don't much matter. I was pointing out at Talk:Barack Obama that one person's notability is another's "who cares?" I say let's get you an account so you can dig into the Wiki community, and work on improving the articles, rather than frothing up to attack others, huh? Newguy34 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, an apples and oranges comparison. Classic.  A three word search in almost any search engine is almost always going to result in fewer hits than a two word search.  Lets try "Obama smoke"(11.5m) vs "Bush Shoe"(13.6m) or "Obama stops smoking" (1.4m) vs "Bush shoe Throw"(3.6m), the 'ing' also drops your results typically but in Obama's case it actually increased the numbers by half a million so I used it.  So that's where he's getting the ammo, so to speak.  In any case, we need to wait to see what happens to this whole shoe thing.  RTRimmel (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Like a good lawyer, which I am not, I knew the answer before I posed the question.  I can make the numbers say almost anything, which is why the "truth" is just so darn tricky to get our hands on.  But, it was my original point about context and perspective that was lost on him/her.  Not sure how I upset the lad (or lady) so, but hope he/she signs up with a user account, rather than the whoop-whoop of the secret black helicopters in the dark of the night.  A user that we can welcome, touch and see is preferable to an ANON IP anytime. Newguy34 (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So your point is that an unscrupulous user can manipulate the information for purposes of POV pushing on the wiki. RTRimmel (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes. Hadn't that always been the case?  A cynical viewpoint, to be sure, but I temper it with a general belief in the goodness of most people.  Kind of like Reagan's old, "Trust, but verify."  Newguy34 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I completly agree. Anyone who would use loaded question to manipulate 'truth', 'apples to oranges comparisons', and then attempts to defend those positions by saying other people do the same thing deserves to be verified quite extensivly.  Its against WP:Civil for one, and we have to assume good faith.  RTRimmel (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The tricky part, however, is that "truth" is subjective, and the N in NPOV is subjective. For example, is neutrality achieved by addition or subtraction? Is the truth of a matter, something that can be known to all without the filters and bias that we all carry? Is POV pushing borne of inherent bias something that is veiled in "neutrality", using an artful command of the written word? All questions to ponder, if one wishes. Or one can think they are fooling others with their bias wrapped in NPOV, but really only be fooling themselves. Newguy34 (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Some reliable info about this:

To get the context I had to rely on foreign sources, in this case a German one which gives much more input about why it happened and what the attacker (if you want to call a "shoe-thrower" so *lol*) had in mind doing so. This is just plain info from my side (and of course the news channels website). So don't blame me if you don't like it but feel free to ask me if something isn't clear. Don't know how good the translation is but it's accurate (and it's not Google :)   ).
 * Soooo, here is some translation of a very reliable German source :

Hope it helps. I'll post this also at the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration talk page since one editor included this incident and even so this would be the proper page to include it he did a good faith "bad" edit since he left out context (that he might not had at the time). I'd rather see it gone for the moment and reintroduced more proper at some point if there is consensus over there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He throws his shoes and shouts:"That's a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog."
 * To hit somebody with a shoe or just showing the shoe sole and call him a dog, an animal that is considered in the middle east as unclean (like a pig) is in the Arabic world is probably the strongest way to insult a person.
 * As Mohammed Abdul Rahman, a college of him said:"He just couldn't hold back since Mr. Bush was talking about achievements in Iraq, achievements he [Bush] accomplished (like democracy) which we just can't confirm". Just the opposite: there is no (electric) power, no provision of services and no reconstruction. "That's why he wanted to insult Bush and tell him: You're a liar and you can't deal with us in this manner." Abdul Rahman further said, "It is an irony of history: After Bush defeated Saddam Hussein in 2003, the people of Iraq slapped the dictators statue with shoes; now it is Bush who gets the shoes of the Iraqi people."


 * May I simply suggest that we all take a step back and wait for a few days? Maybe a week? Only minimal material has emerged about the "shoe-thrower" in recent days, namely that he hates the United States. Not much else. If something truly significant that has to do with President Bush emerges from this, then we can consider including it. See WP:NOBJ. Happyme22 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gosh, that's what I'm asking since my first statement here and still have hope editors apply any patience they have, just collecting material meanwhile before "demanding" inclusion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that this should be noted but not a whole staory about it, just when were why and aftermath.Washington95 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Magnificent: I'm not angry in the slightest, rather my intention was to support you in what you were saying. We need to take a step back and wait.


 * Washington95, my friend, we have policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia which help us write the best articles that we can. Just because something happens relating to George W. Bush doesn't quailfy it for immediate inclusion in this article. I think I tried to explain that concept above at . If you have any question, please feel free to ask me. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC

So whats the decision does it get added or not? My opinion It dosn't because it had no aftershock with the news really,just a couple stories.ThanksIt&#39;s Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, and certainly not here. It might belong in the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration article (where it already is and maybe the discussion should move over there). But again and again: Nobody should jump ahead. Patience is the word and see if it will be just short living news or more.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be listed IMHO for several reasons. Firstly the president of the USA is the most protected man in the planet and hence this incident is notable in itself. For example how many presdents of the USA have had things thrown at them least of all shoes? So there is no doubt that this incident is unique and notable. If presidents of the USA are routinely pelted with objects then I agree that this incident should not be mentioned, however here we have a foreign reporter who was able to throw something at the most protected man on earth.Kerr avon (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point, but it sounds like your point relates more to the protection of the president rather than George W. Bush himself. Maybe something can be included in the United States Secret Service article? I think it's fine to mention this in the Foreign policy article, but, as some of us have said above, nothing truly noteworthy has come of the incident. Happyme22 (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

War Crimes Tribunal
When are we going to include information on Bush's pending appearance before court on charges of murder (Vincent Bugliosi) or war crimes (Hague, ICC)? This is clearly coming. It is noteworthy. Why is it omitted from the discourse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.245.213 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is omitted from the article probably because there are no reliable sources that he will go on trial for anything. I looked at can find lots of information about Bugliosi and his claims that Bush could be prosecuted for murder but I can find no reliable sources that say he will be prosecuted for anything.  If you can find a reliable source that says he will be prosecuted then put it here and we can work it into the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture
I have no idea how the current picture of the President has slipped by the editors of wikipedia. In the interest of fairness this picture should be taken of immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.81.184 (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Christmas Eve and Christmas are times when there are a lot of editors tending to family and holiday matters. I've taken care of it, thanks for bringing it to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas Air National Guard Service
Why is an alcohol incident that happened two years after his discharge and having nothing to do with his Military service included under this heading? Either move it or delete it.
 * I've tried something. Happyme22 (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Impact of the Bush Administration on the 2008 elections
In order to understand the Bush Administration and its ultimate rejection by a majority of American voters metion should be made of the election of Barack Obama. He was a candidate who in the past might have been a long shot -- he was African American, had a public persona that was "cool" rather than "warm" in a MCluhanesque sense, was a Senator with a voting record (usually a detriment to a potential Presidential run). Yet for these same reasons he was seen as the anti-Bush, who was a member of an old American family with great wealth and political pedigree, had a "warm" folksy public persona, and came on the scene with few intellectual or governmental distinctions.

I would add a paragraph to the Bush bio along the lines of:

The election of Barack H. Obama as president in 2008 was widely seen as a rejection of the Bush administration in general, and George W. Bush in particular. In a scathing assessment of this turn around, liberal columnist Paul Krugman wrote in the January 2, 2009 edition of the New York Times.:

"Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.

"If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”

"Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.96.58 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea on the new section. But we can't add such a long quotation. Also add another sentence or two about how McCain had to distance himself from Bush all through the election, with citations. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating a new section would not be necessary -- anything about that should go in the public perception section. Happyme22 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, a great many experts blame the failures of the entire Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 on Bush's shoulders based on the decisions made by the President. It may deserve its own section (or at minimum a subsection) if enough political expert's opinions, who are qualified to speak on this topic, can be gathered.  RTRimmel (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be a subsection in the George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States, but certainly not here. This article is a generalization of all things pertaining to George W. Bush himself, while sub articles can deal with more specific facts. It would pertain more to the Bush administration as well. Happyme22 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the material would be entirely relevant for this main article. The public rejected "all things pertaining to George W. Bush himself," that's what the new section is about, and that's why it should be included. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Krugman's comments are speculation. Many people voted for Obama, because they liked Obama rather than out of dislike of Bush. The election of Obama should not necessarily be read as a rejection of all of Bush's political beliefs. SMP0328. (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with this line of thought is that the typical Democratic commercial at this time was "Republican Candidate X and Bush, Rep candidate voted with Bush 9x% of the time, Bush sucks, vote for the democrat." My local elections were swept by Democrats. I've read several credible reports blaming Bush, and various Republican hi jinks, for the failure of the Republicans in 06 and mostly Bush in 08.  He seems, again according to a host of experts, to have damaged the entire Republican Brand, so to speak.  So it may be worthwhile to mention.  Bush came into office with the hushed thoughts of a permanent Republican Majority, and his Party failed hard during his term.  RTRimmel (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Desk?
Anyone know anything/have a cite for his decision to use Ulysses S. Grant's desk during his presidency? I added that to the Resolute Desk article using a quick source I found, but does anyone else know about this? Another-anomaly (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he uses the Resolute desk. He talks about it here. Happyme22 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A few incomplete sentences
I found a couple of incomplete/run-on sentences and there may be more on this page but with the protection I can't fix them.

The Bush administration pushed for significantly increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003,[85] after two years, the regulations passed the House but died in the Senate.

In September 2008, the crisis became much more serious. With the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac followed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers.[88] and a federal bailout of American International Group for $85 billion.[89]

Notmuchtotell (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 HNN Poll
Any accurate article on George W. Bush will undoubtedly seem biased due to his enormous unpopularity, especially during his second term in office. But this article bends over backwards to sugar-coat various criticisms of the Bush administration. In particular, the article mentions the 2008 HNN poll and talks about why it cannot be considered a scientific poll, but does not give the results, in which 98.2 percent of 109 historians polled said Bush's was a failed presidency, and 61 percent said Bush is the worst President in U.S. history. The article inaccurately says the 2008 HNN poll results were similar to an earlier poll, though the 2008 results were actually far more critical of Bush (see http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html). I think the article should give credit where credit is due, even if it paints a very bad picture of this President. Shartexas (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC) shartexas
 * This was discussed at Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_55 where we were able to formulate this version. Happyme22 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any poll that judges a president before he is even out of office is worthless.

Nav boxe overkill
Say folks, don't ya's think this article's nav box has got un-needed info? Bush was never the RNC chair nor Lieutenant Governor of Texas. Infact, the whole Republican Party (USA) entry, should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Governors and Lieutenant governors are in one navbox. Bush was nominated as candidate twice, and his name is in the Republican party USA article as well. Happyme22 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it's un-needed, though. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservative?
For several years, I've heard the term neoconservative applied to Bush. The article on neonservatism even mentions that the term was heavily used when he became president. I came to this Wiki article wanting to find out when he had ever been a liberal and found nothing, not even a mention of the term here. Can anyone answer how the term neoconservative can be applied to him, and maybe put it in the article? Thanks. --Tim010987 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the term neoconservative, like many political labels, is slippery. It originally referred to ex-Democrats like Wolfowitz and Perle who were hawkish on foreign policy and therefore aligned with the Nixon and Reagan administrations. It then came to be applied to other conservatives with similar (highly interventionist) foreign-policy views like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who had never been liberals. Given that the Bush administration has closely followed their viewpoint, it seems fair to call Bush himself a neoconservative. Unfortunately, I don't have sources on hand for any of this. A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The artixlw on neoconservatism seems to explain resonably well how the term is variously applied. In particular, it makes it clear that it is often applied to people who were always conservative. Actually not being an American, I've always thought the term was applied to people who were supportive of what is seens as new form of conservatism as opposed to the old form called paleoconservatism. I never knew it had some roots in conservatives who used to be liberals. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Counting the seconds
The top of the article mentions the exact point in time when Bush will no longer be president. I think mentioning the date is completely relevant, since he will be out of office in a matter of days, but saying the precise time when his second term expires makes it seem like the article is counting the seconds until he will be gone. If it is, then the neutrality of this article, or at least that sentence, is questionable. Not everybody is on the edge of their seat, waiting expectantly for Obama to solve all of our problems forever. Just a thought. --Sir Bradfordshire (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Are you actually questioning the neutrality of the article because it uses precise language regarding time?

I'm literally counting the seconds until you reply. You probably don't like that using a clock, but when you come up with a better way to mark time you let me know, OK?--71.17.188.132 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a slap in the face, "Oh my gosh, we are 12 hours, 55 minutes, and 13 seconds before he is gone!!!". Most people would say the date, excluding the exact time, is more professional. 206.174.71.100 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's Al Gore
in the introduction to the article? It says who he defeated to become Governor of Texas and who he defeated to win his second term. But Al is curiously missing from the sentence, "In a close and controversial election, Bush was elected president in 2000 as the Republican candidate, receiving a majority of the electoral votes, but losing the popular vote." As this was the most important of the 3 elections, I think Al merits a mention (or you should take the names of the other two defeated candidates out). Atrapalhado (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added Al Gore at the end of the quoted sentence. SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to make language more accurate
the U.S. economy entered its second recession under Bush, and his administration took a firmer hand with the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages.

To say "a firmer hand" is perhaps overstating the case. It would probably be more accurate to say that the admin became more involved in dealing with the economy. A firmer hand...not so clear.

I changed it to 'firmer hand' since more firm is grammatically less desireable. Firm has a strong form, firmer. More and most should be used on adjectives that do not have this form. JohnLease (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to another's post re Katrina...it would probably be more accurate to say that the admin's response was widely perceived as a failure. The current language is probably somewhat misleading. A CBS/NYT poll said 17% thought response adequate and 80% did not (in the few days after Katrina). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrucker (talk • contribs) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

term not over?
Both Obama's and Bush's pages both say they are president. Shouldn't something be done about this?
 * I've made some preparatory edits: seems to make little difference seeing that Barack's presidency is imminent. --Marianian (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ok good stuff ah, Bush has been chosen to be president for a little longer i see. He's probably checking on here himself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.99.114 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't see how it's fair to have a whole page of criticism of Bush when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama don't even have criticism sections in their articles, much less entire pages. Are we trying to be just another biased CNN or MSNBC? By the way, shouldn't there be a mention of the page in the article? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It seems a bit too unfair and it struck me as very odd. I think it needs to be deleted.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Criticism of George W. Bush article is linked in the fourth paragraph of the lead. If you think that Criticism of Bill Clinton and Criticism of Barack Obama articles should exist, then please create them. If you think Criticism of George W. Bush should be deleted, then please nominate it for deletion. This really isn't the place to discuss such things. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um why the heck did you reply here as opposed to the thread above which is actually discussing the criticism section Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cite slow server speeds (at the time, probably due to history in the making) and a nearing end of the lunch hour at school as my excuses. :) PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush's Presidential Portrait
His portrait should be here. What does everyone think? I know he's unpopular and all but talking neutrally. Imadaqu93 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, his official White House portrait should indeed be present in this article. I plan on adding some more to the post presidency section a little later and will work it in there. Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No longer current President
Can someone please update the first line of the article to say that Bush is no longer the current President? Obama's term began two and a half hours ago. 87.65.158.193 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that change has already been made. SMP0328. (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

post presidency
The Bushes have bought a house in Dallas. I think this should be mentioned. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Add a sentence.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, I believe that the Bushes' purchase is the only part of his post presidency that is worth being included in an Encyclopedia article as it is indicative of where he plans to spend a substantial amount of time. (I think it would be absurd to read in what type of buggy Lincoln left town.)  Keep in mind that this section was created by someone who wanted to add a POV comment that Bush watched the inauguration 'with a cross look on his face.'  See 'Revision as of 21:18, 20 January 2009' by user:Galaxydog2000 Ellensn (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"former President "
Has everybody noticed how people are going round to various articles and adding "former" in describing events that BWB did when he was in the office of president. This is wrong. Same for Cheney.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He isnt the President
SO why does Wikipedia claim he still is, he's been out for more then 24hrs! Thanatos465 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does it say he is still President? It looks like you found a place that just hasn't been caught yet.  Let someone know where you found it or fix it when you find it.  A new name 2008 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

succession box
I added the exact dates (Jan. 20) to when his presidency began and ended in the succession box. This brings uniformity (other presidential pages give the exact date), and I think people would want to know the exact date. --EATC —Preceding unsigned comment added by EATC (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Update
Hes not currently "In office." Change needs to be made below his picture. (Outonawhim (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

→ The "In Office" tag, which is part of the template, denotes the dates that the person occupied the office (shown directly below "In Office"). The dates of his Presidency and Gubernatorial terms in Texas are accurate and reflect the dates from which he served as the Governor of Texas, and then President of the United States. No changes required, the template is accurate as it stands... --Wikisystole (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias in article
I think the following sentence at the end, making reference to his low approval rating, should be placed elsewhere in the article. This is his bio, not an attack on him. Ricky.Adams (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

"becoming the first national leader in history to declare war upon a strategy."
Is there some sort of citation for this or an explanation? The lacking explanation, as is, may be perceived as either a negative or novel opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akane00 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The President can't declare war, only Congress can76.177.39.156 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Happyme22 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually (as far as my understanding goes) the President declares war and usually (but not in general) needs the approval of congress. I beg for more detailed clarification from knowledgeable editors.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Article I of the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to declare war and fund a military. Article II gives the Pres the power of Commander-in-Chief and the ability to mobilize said miltary.  However, the Pres has to report any movement to Congress and after a period of time under the War Powers Act, Congress has the decision to if troops stay or go home.  That is why I have felt people have given the President far too much credit over Iraq in all accounts.  If Congress felt things were wrong they could have pulled them out of there over 5 years ago since they have that power. Mustang  Six  Zero  01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Read up on what Rosevelt did with the navy and you'll realize how little power congress actually has when faced with an exectutive that 'goes it alone'. In short, Rosevelt wanted to send essentially the entire US navy around the world.  Congress gave him enough money to move half the navy around the world.  He sent the whole navy half way around the world and then came back and asked for more money.  Congress gave him more money.  Pulling out the troops through lack of funding is a quick way to lose an election, historically, Congress will never do it.  Simple as that.  RTRimmel (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct in the political reasoning. However, by definition and by the Consititution that is not correct.  That still does not mean that Roosevelt could declare war.  No President by Article II and I of the Consitution can declare war, only Congress.  President's can, through the power of CinC and the War Powers Act, move troops at their discretion.  However, the funding and allowance comes only from Congress after a period of time.  Thus the statement that Bush declared war is incorrect.  All you have to do is read the Constitution and the War Powers Act to understand.  Congress still has an obligation and power to move troops if need be.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So we are in agreement that there is a difference between what the Constitution says and what the President/Congress actually does in some situations. I didn't say a thing about Bush declaring war on anything, however technically several 'wars' have been conducted by the President with little approval of Congress.  None of this is relevant to this discussion however.  If you'll remember, Congress attempted to place a timetable for withdrawal into the funding for the war on several occasions only to have Bush veto them.  Sure they have the power, but Bush had the power to ignore them and did so.  RTRimmel (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Assertion in opening section
From the third paragraph:
 * "...Bush announced a global War on Terrorism, ordered an invasion of Afghanistan that same year and an invasion of Iraq in 2003, becoming the first national leader in history to declare war upon a strategy." (emphasis mine)

The first national leader in history? Nah. I can think of plenty of examples that could pass as declaring war "upon a strategy", which is a pretty vague term in any case. Unless there's a good citation in support of that, I think the bolded part needs to go -- or be rewritten -- especially given that it's on the opener to a widely-read article. Would an admin please comment on this and make the change if in agreement? Thanks. 24.174.68.191 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this issue was mentioned a couple of sections up. I'd apologize for repetition just a day later, but since the statement in question is still there...24.174.68.191 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Article I of the US Constitution, only the Congress can declare war.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 to be exact. SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

broadness
This page seems to be a bit too broad, especially the opening section. The article also seems somewhat over negative and fails to mention some of the greater achievements of the Bush Administration. Can we get that fixed up? I would like wikipedia to remain nonpartisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.81.184 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Executive One
The Post presidency sections contains the following

Following the inauguration of Barack Obama, former President Bush and his family boarded a presidential helicopter typically used as Marine One to travel to Andrews Air Force Base.[289] The call sign of the helicopter was designated Executive One for the flight to Andrews Air Force Base.[290]

The article it references is most likely in error but I did not edit the page because I do not know this for a certainty. Executive One is a call sign used exclusively by the sitting President if he is flying on a civilian aircraft (to date it has never happened). See the Executive One article. If normal aviation rules are followed the helicopter normally called Marine One would have gone by its tail number and NOT by Executive One. Likewise if the President is not aboard one of the two Executive air craft they go by the call signs A2800 or A2900 and not as Air Force One. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoss789 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be bad information, or they may have made an exception -- in any event, it not detrimental to our understanding of the 2009 inauguration or George W. Bush. I'm going to remove it. Happyme22 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush played baseball and was the head cheerleader senior year
This line is misleading. The article says Bush dressed up as a cheerleader on stage at a school event. This is misleading and needs to be taken off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar (talk • contribs) 07:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which line are you referring to? According to reliable sources like CNN, he was head cheerleader at Andover Academy.  He was also involved in various pranks, but these are incidental.  Read the sources referenced in the article, please, rather than just attempt to guess their contents from the pictures.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

needs research - did bush graduate harvard or yale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.197.102 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both. See the article.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeating facts
The last two sentences of the lead, although technically differant, say the same thing. Must we continue to bash the man and not follow WP:BLP?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To those who wish to know or care. Bush got a bump in the polls in the last few days, so the statement about him having the lowest approval rating of any president when leaving office is no longer true. See this article from Gallup.com . So it no longer matters either way.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More accurately he got a bump in ONE poll. So it still matters.  The historical unpopularity of this "leader" is well worth mentioning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.128.178 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush's Presidential Portrait 2
Someone who can, please change the caption for the portrait shown in the Post Presidency section. It is not his Official White House portrait. It is a portrait commissioned by the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery. The official White House portrait has not yet been commissioned. 204.128.192.3 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you are correct. I'll change it. Happyme22 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran-contra 2.0
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandré du Toit (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So? One "investigative" reporter, to date, trying to sell a controversial fashion magazine. I think we will need a bit more before the POV pushers can use this to kick him after he is gone. Newguy34 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we wait and see if the Obama Administration does anything regarding this. If there's any prosecutions, then we can put it in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Article is simply an op-ed. And I'm quite certain we don't source opinion pieces to support facts, unless it's commentary by an individual.  A little off-topic:  the Obama Administration has no control over any silly persecution of our ex-President, though I'm sure any idea of his would be instantly met with wild and glorious cheering. Blah. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation has ben Vandalized
I'm not sure which "established registered user" did this, but I doubt "Wan-kur" is the pronunciation key for George W. Bush.

Someone please change this back to the correct key.

Magnus357 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been reverted. Thanks for the heads up! --Happyme22 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush is no longer "in office" please correct!!!
The page is locked but Bush is obviously no longer "in office".. Someone please update the status to reflect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.37.61 (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of him being in office still, it says 2001-2009. It might be the "In office [for]" in the infobox that you are refering to. --Clark89 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * relax. read the line immediately after "in office". Anastrophe (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"In 2008, the U.S. economy entered its second recession under Bush"
The word "entered" may be considered misleading depending on the definition of recession. It is generally known that Bush inherited a recession, which would make the "second" recession "entered" invalid. Again, this depends on definition, i.e. if you count the stock market drop after 9/11 as a recession then this statement is true. If that period after 9/11 is termed a recession then it is important to put it in context of the time as well as a balanced view of the market's upswing after.

This seems to be an endemic problem with this page. There are a lot of words that call into question the neutrality of the information being presented. Word choice is very important and I would encourage others to help refine this page to a more balanced presentation of data. I understand Mr. Bush is not liked by many of us, but this is not the place to sneak in cheap shots or a forum of political opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akane00 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Bush inherited the recession that began on March 2001 (according to the NBER), from the president at that time.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should be reworded. Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to comply with WP:NPOV in the strict sense, the article should say something like: "According to the NBER, George W. Bush inherited the recession from whomever was president during the month of March 2001." siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...sorry. I shouldn't be so facetious.  I actually do agree with Happyme, that better sources and more suitable wording should be found.  The "March 2001" recession was from the slow deflation of the dot-com bubble, which definitely happened under Clinton's watch.  Nonetheless, I would like to see a solid and politically uninvolved comment on the matter.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If Bush took office in Jan 2001, and a recession officially began in Mar 2001, then how could he have inherited it? My recollection is that the recession actually began in the Fall of 2000 during the election.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a downturn, the recession officially began in March 2001. Soft quarter before, soft quarter after.  The 9 11 attack also triggered a downturn, but the economy recovered enough that the effects could not be considered a recession. The statement "In 2008, the U.S. economy entered its second recession under Bush" is factually true and quite bluntly most presidents have at least one recession under their belts so its not even worth its own sentence, which is why I crammed in with talk about the signifigant recession under Bush.  It was also used in the source and I thought it clever.  There have been 8 recessions since WW2 and 11 presidents.  Those are not good odds.  RTRimmel (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem was that the recession was very mild by any standard and was followed up with 52 months of growth in the jobs. The way the administration always spun it was that the recession was Clinton's fault, but the recovery in all of its glory was Bush's due to tax cuts.  The critics can spin it, easily, that changes in the economic structure by Bush's tax plans caused the recession and strong growth under Clinton allowed the market to recover easily and caused more jobs.  Neither is 100% correct and both are oversimplifying it of course, but recessions do happen to the best of presidents.  RTRimmel (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would follow the general concensis of the certain editors on the page and simply delete the offending section via a subtraction edit without any commentantary, or misleading comments, and hope no one notices. Say its controvertial or something.  That's a good way of getting rid of sourced material as well.  For example, recently someone removed the section about Iraq war casualties because it was controvertial (despite the fact that the source listed was from the US) and then when it was reverted someone else split it in half and required cites for the 2nd half, despite the fact that the same number of cites were on teh first half.  After it was cited and a cite tag was placed on the first half was it finally 'done'.  Another editor recently removed the fact that Bush left office with the lowest approval numbers in history with a vague BLP notation which was not accurate.  Quoting Wiki policy only works when you are right, mainly.  Another example would be the Katrina Debacle, it went bad.  Very very bad.  But its POV to say that it was handled about as badly as it could possibly be handled, and despite the fact that no-one provided any sources saying that it was an utter failure, we have to leave the percieved weasle word in front of it.  REmember, it was the percieved destruction of the US Fleet in Hawaii, allegedly by Japan, that possibly caused the US to enter what some consider to be World War 2(despite the fact that many small african nations were not involved at all).  But if you try to put something postitive about Bush on the page, remember those very same editors who will fight tooth and nail about the exact level and accuracy of the negative cites will politely, and quickly, turn the other way.  Not that there is a double standard mind you.  And the first recession was by all accounts a very minor one, which is the reason it didn't get much of a mention, such  minor recessions are part of the US economy every few years and are hardly noteworthy despite what some might think.  It wasn't Bush's fault, but it also wasn't signifigant enough that anyone cared.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's funny how some try to rewrite history in WP, bending the facts to blame negative aspects on someone else. The real world doesn't buy it anyway.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno, I spent a bit of time digging up sources on a few of those points. RTRimmel (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the duty of Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong, and we will never be able to fairly determine who should get their way; it is our duty to neutrally explain both sides of the issue. I say we ought to report that some people blame Bill Clinton while other people blame Bush. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

assassination as foreign policy
Why is the 2005 assassination attempt listed under the foreign policy section? Did this effect Bush's foreign policy some how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.91.24 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess because of where it happened. But it could be moved or mentioned in the "Presidency" section which should have a short summary of the subs.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but assassination is not the foreign policy of the United States, no matter what you may think. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perceived shortcomings in response to Hurricane Katrina?
Neutrality is great, but I don't think you can call the government response a 'perceived shortcoming'. Naturally you don't want to have inflammatory language, but perceived makes it seem like their is some debate about it. I don't think logically that case can be made. JohnLease (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is perceived by many, but not by all. Thus the perception differs. Happyme22 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if 99% or far more of the experts believed and were quoted, repeatedly by all sources, that the Administration's handling of Katrina was either poor or terrible, someone somewhere views it differently and they should receive equal weight. I certainly couldn't find any sources that said that the government's handling of Katrina was anything other than bad, but if I removed that it would be edited out entirely as a POV violation despite the fact that none of the other editors would be able to find a source that said otherwise. Then again, some people don't believe water boarding is Torture, for example, despite the fact that 100% of experts are on board with that and the water boarding page sought out ANY differing opinions and found nothing that was not fringe and had to fight for months to get the language to refer to it for what it was... torture.  RTRimmel (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent National Guard troops to LA in response. In talking to them and many workers with FEMA and other organizations the whole story isn't told.  First of all the state has to send the declaration to the Federal Government.  It did not get done in a timely manner. Second, I know first hand, all you had to do was drive over the border and get a different response.  At the displaced person center at the convention center in Baton Rouge I witnessed a lot of what didn't get reported.  People too lazy to walk 50 yards to the Red Cross Mess tent to eat, it had to be brought to them, people using their government cards to buy non-essentials and to go gamble at a recently reopened casino, no willingness to help in clean up, people to lazy to go to the bathroom so they urinated in bottles, and having sex in front of kids.  When we crossed the border into Mississippi, we thought we were in heaven.  They felt for the most part the response was adequate.  People helped us unload materials and were very thankful we were there.  Didn't get a lot of that in LA.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to imply anything, but I work for a state chief executives office of emergency services, and it's well know in the community that like the rest of us Louisiana had been given millions and millions of dollars year after rear for disaster preparation... including levy reinforcement. And year after year the money given for disaster preparation was diverted by the local officials to people and programs that had more to do with getting re-elected than it did with disaster preparation. The money diversion is easily tracked through FEMA but no one wants to shed light on Louisiana's "creative money handling" else they be labeled as something that they aren't. So I'm not sure it does the truth much good to point at Mr. Bush as the root of the problem. --A. Renner (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush Final Approval Rating
Instead of mentioning his low approval rating of 19%, which I would like to a source for, his exit approval rating show be placed in the opening section. He ended his Presidency with a 34% approval rating with gallup and 35% with rasmussen reports. His exit approval rating is also actually the 3rd lowest in history, not lowest. This can be found in the gallup link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.81.184 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the specific polling numbers and other things from the lead into the "public perception" section, where they rightfully belong. All the numbers and such were too much for the lead section, which is meant to provide a very broad and general overview of the subject. I've chronologically ordered his poll numbers in the perception section as well (rest assured, it is all there).


 * As for what the IP is saying above, those too are interesting numbers and should be included alongside the others in the public perception section. Depending on who the poll was conducted by, there is never going to be a definite "he was second" or "he was third" in disapproval. Happyme22 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is here, it is in the article. Right after the 19% actually. As I said before, we had those references up at the top of the page for the past several months, sans the actual numbers, and you can move them into the perceptions section but I give it about a week, at most, before we get a Bush has the Highest approval rating on record back in there.  I would prefer to see us add it back in before then as it gets to be a nasty set of edit wars to get what, in essence, we had before a few users decided that more information was necessary.  In short, you solution will aggravate the problem more than correct it.  Further we are getting a string of double standard edits, so hopefully now that Bush is out of office things will die down a bit sooner rather than later.  RTRimmel (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the "Bush had the highest" comes back, I'll be the first to support its removal. In my time here on Wikipedia, I've learned not to be afraid to do something because of a consequence that may or may not happen. If it is added back, we take it to the talk page and say why it is inappropriate. But those poll numbers, long sentences, and a careful attempt at NPOV was, as I said in my edit summary, a bit silly and needed to go. Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you planning on going to President Truman's article and removing the popularity information from the lead there as well? The main reason the information about Bush's popularity keeps popping up is that it is notable.  He did have the highest.  He did have the lowest.  He did have the worst 2nd term, in terms of popularity, on record.  He did have the highest disapproval numbers on record.  Whitewashing it doesn't do anyone any favors either.  RTRimmel (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to see what real whitewashing is, go to the Obama page.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was also hoping that accusations of "whitewashing" wouldn't start flying. My edits were in accordance with WP:LEAD, which says that the lead is an overview of the article's subject; everything included should be given appropriate weight. Giving out specific numbers -- highest, lowest, highest approval, highest disapproval, lowest ever, etc -- does not contribute positively to the lead. Statements should be general to encourage readers to actually read the full article. If readers want more on exactly how high Bush's approval went then they can read the article. If they want more on exactly how low it went, they can read the article. If we are to present everything in the lead, why write the rest of the article? There's no whitewashing going on. If you read the public perception section, all the numbers -- from 90% to 19% -- are there. And that is where they should be. Happyme22 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this "near record low" bullshit? Unarguably he left office with the lowst aproval rating since the polling's inception. I'm fixing this. Neverfades (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
Maybe some more words about PEPFAR would be appropriate. Among other things it supported the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission allowing nearly 240,000 infants to be born HIV-free. The PEPFAR website describes it as the the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in history. The Avert website states that funding for HIV/AIDS treatment increased steadily to reach $18.8 billion for the first five-year period - exceeding the original commitment of $15 billion.

However, looking at the current Wikipedia article a totally different picture is outlined. Here I only see two lines about a broken promise. So can someone shed some light on this? -Armin B. Wagner (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that PEPFAR needs to be added. I had planned on doing this, but I ran into a lot of other things and just lost the time. I'll add it soon, though. --Happyme22 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, probably the article should also mention the Global gag rule, and the negative impact this has had on HIV prevention.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing Parts of Opening Section
I look at Barack Obama's opening section and then I look at George W. Bush's and I see a big difference. Obama's seems to praise him in a slanted way whereas Bush's contains a lot of negativity, including nothing about his second term.

I think the President's AIDS Program and the fact that he graduated from Harvard Business school need to be added to the opening section. Can we actually have these done by the editors?? The editors here always say "yeah we'll take care of it" but they don't do it. Lets make this website a bit more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.81.184 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush approval rating
The article states that Bush's approval rantings fell to 19%, yet the sources show Bush not falling below a 23-24% approval ranting.75.54.130.202 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the source, which is in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Approval ratings are based on polls, so reports based on certain polls will differ from reports based on other polls. There's probably no "official" approval rating, and there's no telling that any of them are accurate anyway. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is under this line of logic, you can discredit any source that you do not feel is accurate. Fortunately Wikipedia has a policy for that. Verifiability  They are verifiable numbers from credible sources.  Polling is a science even if you happen to disagree with it.  RTRimmel (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is very important to those who want to make sure history is written "correctly" and that sentiments about the subject are etched in stone as soon as possible. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem being, of cource, that the sentiments about the subject will change over time making the "etching in stone" part unfair, impractical, and revisionist (in the future). Newguy34 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that logic is that we have information now that comes from reliable sources and to discount all of it because it may be proven wrong in 20 years leaves us with very little to actually put in the article. If you've looked at the edit summaries of this article, nothing in here is etched in stone and as new information becomes available we can add it in.  RTRimmel (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating it, just recognizing it. I agree that we go with what we have that is as current as possible.  Given that, there is a statement in the current BLP about a "poll" taken in 2006 of 744 historians about how Bush's presidency has been regarded. I think it (and the remainder of that paragraph) is a candidate for either "freshening" up or removing given that it lacks current relevance. Newguy34 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A 'poll' containing 744 members professional historians and another including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners. Its the only professional academic opinion in the section right now.  If you can find another poll with that many diplomas behind it I'd suggest replacing it but until we have one I don't see how we could. RTRimmel (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on now. 400 years ago many thousand academics thought the world was flat.  Should we still include that information today? Newguy34 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of argument is that? In 400 years things have been proven different?  Okay.  We are talking about 3 years.  Its another apples to oranges comparison.  We have a 400 year old theory vs the weight of current scientific theory and unsurprisingly current scientists think different.  We have a 3 year old poll, and we don't have anything more current and both are likely to be using the same methodology to get their answers and its doubtful that there will have been a massive shift in their professional opinions. Instead of complaining that the poll is dated, find a current academic poll that has a bunch of diplomas behind it that says otherwise and your argument gets much more tenable, but right now it doesn't hold any water.  RTRimmel (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A million diplomas wouldn't matter. The "same methodology" wouldn't matter.  It's about reliable sources, remember?  How do you know there isn't a more current poll? Newguy34 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked? Then I looked again.  Did you find one? If so, again, please post it.  The ones I found were less through than the first one and not statistically different enough in their results so I did not feel inclined to add them in.  And the polls meets all of the requirements for verifiability and can be considered reliable as Wikipedia needs it to be additionally it is as reliable as many other cites on the page so that argument falls flat too.  You are not adding anything to the quality of this article with your current logic so either find a good source that proves your argument or let it die.  RTRimmel (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, what about my statement "I'm not advocating" are you unable to understand? If there is a more recent poll from a reliable source, I believe it should be substituted.  "Less th[o]rough", you say?  You don't get to decide on quality, so please watch the bias.  As to the rest of what you wrote, I am unable to decipher your run-on sentence, and therefore incapable of adequately responding.  That you are incapable of understanding my "logic" (it's not really my logic, but rather my assertion), is insufficient to declare that I am not adding to the quality of the article.  Let's try to watch the POV, shall we?  Please comment on the article and edits, not other editors.  Thanks.  Newguy34 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't have any other sources. Fine.  And I always love the ad hominin followed by a discussion of an editors lack of bias and brilliant intellect (while making a yet another circular argument, so far you've done an apples to oranges comparison, an attack on the sources while providing no other sources to back it up, and then an attack on me) whereas the other editor is attempting to destroy both the article and Wikipedia as a whole, by saying to find a better source if you disagree with the one in the article.  Any who, back to the original point.  The paragraph is fine.  The cites are fine.  The sources are the most current.  So, given a lack of any meaningful improvements offered by other editors, it sounds like it should stay.  Thanks for the help.  RTRimmel (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem?! Where?  I see a hasty generalization with your comments about how I may be trying to claim that you are destroying Wikipedia.  I also see a red herring by attempting to point out all the places you perceive me to have proferred logical fallicies.  No matter how many times you throw up the proverbial and time-honored "there's another apples to oranges comparison" you are missing the point, with all due respect.  Where in my comments have I attacked the source?  Where in my comments have I made a circular arguement?  Where in my comments have I said I lacked bias?  Bias is fine, but the articles have to be free of bias (as much as possible).  I suggest two doses of "read my comments more closely before you attribute statements to me that I did not make" and then let's get back to improving the article.  I think most prudent people would agree that suggesting that there may be a more current source for some statement, is attempting to do just that. Newguy34 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, as promised, back to the article. The statement regarding the results of the poll seem fine, if that is the most current writing on the subject. But, the rest of the paragarph about the credentials of those polled is unnecessary and irrelevant. If the cite comes from a reliable source, then it is in. If it doesn't, then it is out. Simple as that, without all the "here's, reader, why you should believe this more than other polls that may get added to this article because it has a lot of historians with a lot of letters after their names." Wiki doesn't decide quality (as it related to this matter). Wiki doesn't decide truth. If the source is good, the cite should be able to stand on its own. Newguy34 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should properly represent the poll, which HNN states up front is "unscientific". To present it otherwise is highly misleading.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the article text already says that the polls in question were "informal", but to include the rest about the pedigreed historians seems to cut the exact opposite way. What does it add to the validity of the poll or relevance to the BLP? Newguy34 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because if you ask a room full of doctors about an infection you'll get a more accurate answer than if you ask a room full of the general population? A recent poll asked a question that amounted to "is intelligent design the reason that we are here" and 45% of Americans said yes, the same question asked to a room full of biologists got less than a 1% response (0% actually).  So if you ask a group of historians what their opinion on a historical figure is, even informally, it carries more weight than with the general population who tend to be stupid and uninformed about a great number of things.  Then again, if your average person could do a quadruple bypass while waxing nostalgic about the greater benefits of the Lincoln Presidency and giving tips on molecular biology, the world would be a strange place indeed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even sure where to go with this, so I'll give it the "huh?!" The poll was an opinion poll, which didn't ask for an expert analysis, just personal opinion.  We could have asked a bunch of professional chefs, or a gaggle of CPA's and the fact that they were chefs or CPA's wouldn't matter.  Let me be clearer since I sometimes get accused of making convoluted arguements that don't seem to make much sense on their face: When conducting an opinion poll, what matters (i.e., what is relevant) are the poll results, not the intelligence of those polled.  Newguy34 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The intelligence of those polled directly affects the results and is therefor relevant. If you polled Arizona what they thought of the Steelers, you would anticipate different results than if you asked the same question in Pittsburg and that sort of information would have to be put into the article to give context to the results.  So a poll of professional historians is going to have different results than a poll from the general us population and is therefor notable.   RTRimmel (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you in all cases except when dealing with the highly-scientific matter of personal opinion. On that subject, we all get the same say, and we all (well, all who are US citizens) have valued input, which is no more and no less valuable than anyone else, including the professional historians.  Newguy34 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So if you ask a doctor and a 3 year old their personal opinion on a disease, you should expect both to offer advise of the same value because both answers are just personal opinion and therefor have the same value(d input). No more and no less valuable than anyone else, including the professional historians doctors. Of course, we might ... (just maybe and its a stretch) say that the doctor may know a tad more than a toddler, about something in his field of study.  Or we could go with the proven and true logic that all people have the valued input at the same level(excepting of course that any polling expert will tell you that that opinion is a load.)  But a polling of doctors vs a polling of toddlers about something medical, as Newguy has pointed out, would have opinions that are are equally as valuable.  An average US citizen would look at the results and think, "Hmmm. . . terible disease ravages midwest, the doctors say to get innoculated and the toddlers say crayons, both are equally valuable... I'll go crayons."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cute attempt at an anology, by not exactly right. If we asked a doctor and a toddler for their personal opinion about the president, neither response is more credible than the other as it relates to their opinion.  If we ask a toddler about their personal opinion of a disease, I suspect we'd get an answer a kin to "it's bad".  If we ask a doctor for their personal opinion about a disease (as you suggest above), I suspect we'd also get an answer a kin to "it's bad", but if we asked the doctor for his opinion and expect to get advise [sic] (as you suggest) we are asking for their professional opinion.  Much, much different than asking for their personal opinion, as I am hopeful you can appreciate.  What we have here is a poll of personal opinion wrapped in some sort of engorged credibility because we asked "professionals" for their personal opinion.  Newguy34 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just work with what you give me. You see, the problem I have with your basic assessment is that there was one personal opinion poll out of the 4 in the sources.  Then there is an unscientific poll, its unscientific because the sample was allowed to choose itself and was made from a panel of what polsters would have considered experts, and then two unscientific surveys, which were also made up of experts.  So bluntly saying that the whole thing is personal opinion is just your personal opinion.  Unscientific polls are generally not as useful in a broad sense, but in a specific situation with specific questions their answers tend to be more accurate than a general poll.  So, what you are suggesting that there are a bunch of guys sitting around the proverbial watercooler being asked some generic questions doesn't at all match up with 3 of the sources, though I'll grant the other sources is rather weak.  Based on the articles and the questions answered in the articles, it looks like the historians were given pretty detailed surveys in at least two of the pools for ther professional opions, not their personal ones, and so you constantly hopping up on the personal opinion tree falls into the proverbial pile of monkey pooh.  So they asked professional historians their professional opinions based on past trends of presidents (it says so in 2 of the artles) and therefor I'd assume, again this is just me reading the sources like your average lay person, that their professional opions were rendered.  Just to be clear, its obvious in at least 3 of the sources their professional opinions on President Bush based on past presidents from a historical perspective rather than their personal ones.  173.88.18.30 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe what you say is true, maybe not. But, we don't know whether it was personal opinion or academic insight, because all we have is what is written inside the four corners of the articles.  But I would note for the record, that the biting critique quoted in the articles smell much more like personal opinion than they do like analysis (e.g., "He [Bush] has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal ideological adventurers...").  Hardly an objective, rational, academic view of the former president.  Quoting another in the article who seems to have picked up on the crop of liberal historians grinding their collective arsenal of axes, "I suspect that this poll will tell us nothing about President Bush's performance vis-à-vis his peer group, but may confirm what we already know about the current crop of history professors."  And, from another, "If historians were the only voters, Mr. Gore would have carried 50 states."  So, I agree with the individual quoted in one of the sources who said, "until we have gained access to the archival record of this president, we [historians] are no better at evaluating it than any other voter."  I think what we have been given to work with makes this plausible, at the least.  Newguy34 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)