Talk:Presidency of George W. Bush

Abu Ghraib prisoner torture image
My diff (shown at right) was reverted by with the comment "Adds nothing substantive to article". The images of the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib were immensely consequential in shaping public opinion about the Iraq War and the U.S.'s torture of detainees. "The Hooded Man" in particular is considered an iconic image from the Iraq War – I included sources on this as well. Its inclusion is absolutely justified. Looking at the other images from the article, some of them appear to be more "decoration" that don't add substance to the article, e.g. File:Bush discusses social security in Virginia 2005.jpg. I'm not arguing for less pictures – illustration is important. This image from Abu Ghraib specifically illustrates the torture that was a major aspect of Bush's presidency, and the image absolutely contributes to this.-Ich (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given nobody has replied or objected to my reasoning above, I will be bold and re-add this.-Ich (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that nobody replied or affirmed your reasoning above, it should remain out. This image from Abu Ghraib specifically illustrates that you have a non-neutral point of view regarding the subject of torture in connection with the G. W. Bush's presidency. Drdpw (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm still not certain what your argument against this photo's inclusion is, but I would like to ask you not to make assumptions about my views. NPOV means affording the RSs due weight; the RSs I cited describe the photo as "iconic" and "influential". The Abu Ghraib photos had a major, worldwide impact on public opinion of the Global War on Terror; this one in particular was widely reproduced. That these photos "elicited widespread outrage" has long since been included in the body text. This photo accurately illustrates that body text and helps the reader understand the public reaction.
 * I would actually argue the opposite of your point: arbitrarily excluding an iconic, suitably licensed image that is discussed in the body text isn't a neutral stance: it violates NPOV by deliberately eliding something RSs consider important. These images were a major event in Bush's presidency and leaving this out makes the article less complete.-Ich (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As the paragraph's focus is "Guantanamo Bay and enemy combatants" I propose that this picture would be more fitting. Drdpw (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion; this photo was also widely disseminated and is aligned with the section header.-Ich (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Bush Dick Affair" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bush Dick Affair and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Should the Cabinet be a separate page
Should /* Administration */ be turned into something similar to Cabinet of Donald Trump or Cabinet of Joe Biden GameOfAwesome (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)