Talk:George W. Bush

The website for the George W. Bush Presidential Center (GWB's personal website) http://www.georgewbushlibrary.com, should be listed in addition to the White House website on GWB's page. After 1/20/09, it should just list the Presidential Center's site.

deleted, what the hell does barrack obama have to do with bush

How come there's no section on criticism, yet, on the vladimir putin page, there is. This shows wikipedia is clearly biased: either there should be criticism of everybody, or criticism of nobody? am I right? it's a clear double standard. I'm sure there's plenty to criticise bush on....219.79.53.187 (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, Criticism of George W. Bush didn't fit the article - it got one on its own. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very funny, but that's not true. Please see WP:CRITICISM. It is pretty consistent across Wikipedia political biographies that criticism sections intrude on WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Criticisms are interpersed throughout the article. Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there no article called Criticism of George W. Bush on your Wikipedia? Is the internet censored in your region? Poor you... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Happyme22 you say there's no section on criticism, it's included across the article, and this is in all wikipedia articles. but vladimir putin has a section, and a WHOLE ARTICLE on criticism. This seems to contradict what you say, does this mean I am allowed to delete the criticism article on Putin?

This shows that people are using wikipedia to put forward their pro-western political point of view. It's unacceptable. check the putin article, it's unacceptable219.78.14.77 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Criticism of George W. Bush covers the criticism, while this article represents the consensus of what has been agreed upon to be a neutral depiction of the man. Of course, consensus can change and you're welcome to make a case for any additional material you'd like to include.--Loodog (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just dropped by and I, too, was wondering why there was no section on criticism. Even if there is a separate article dealing with that, it's misleading there is not even a short summary on this page and a link to the criticism page. Also, I find the wording of this article way too positive for the worst president of modern times. True, this may be a controversial topic and opinions differ, but there is simply no way around the fact that, outside of the United States, Mr. Bush is/was simply the single most unpopular politician, which is not portrayed here in a sufficient manner. Why? Perplexing, sad -- definitely changed the way I look at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.94.97.242 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Check out part of the article. It deals with how Bush was viewed as President. Do you feel any changes to that part of the article are needed (keeping NPOV in mind)? SMP0328. (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing at the top of this page to show that it contains disputed information. It is presented as lacking controversy - a serious omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.254.218 (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have your own bias, just like everyone else in this world. Bush was unpopular in his second term no doubt about it, but he was extremely popular in his first. Not everything he did was right, but he did accomplish some positives during his tenure as president. Remember when Clinton was in office and how he was criticized. Every president throughout history has been criticized, and if there is an article that is extremely bias then it should be revised or removed. As for Putin I have not read that article. My point is that bickering about a criticism section in the article itself is a joke. Having facts rather than opinions is what wikipedia is about. If you find factual criticism that applies to a particular section of the article, that is where it goes, not in it's own section.Rgoss25 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems quite strange that this article on Bush allows negative comments about his DWI arrest and alcohol abuse, but Wiki will not allow ANY negative comments about Obama especially about his associations with far left-wing American hating radicals. On second thought, not strange at all, just more of the in-the-pocket-for-Obama bias that permeates the media. Chimes39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimes39 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’m suggesting a few changes to the third and fourth paragraphs of this article, as it appears biased. In the spirit of scholarly honesty, I’ll admit that I did support many of Bush’s policies, though I hope that fact has not clouded my judgment when making these suggestions. I believe they’re mostly grammatical suggestions—changing a word or phrase here and there that can be perceived as biased to something that is neutral.

Change: In addition to national security issues, President Bush attempted to promote policies on the economy, health care, education, and social security reform.

To: In addition to national security issues, President Bush promoted policies on the economy, health care, education, and social security reform.

Bush promoted policies; whether or not any or all of the promoted policies were acted upon doesn’t mean that they weren’t promoted. To say he “attempted to promote” policies is inaccurate.

Change: In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with the apparent failures of its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

To: In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with widespread criticism of its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

“apparent failures” seems entirely too biased, especially when the argument can be made that the federal government could not act before the state and local governments. “Widespread criticism” captures the public opinion of the administration’s actions (or lack thereof) without blatant appearance of bias.

Possible Change: and his administration took more direct control of the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages.

If we’re going to say “more direct control,” we need to cite a source stating why it is “more direct.” Specifically, “more direct” than what—previous administrations or his administration prior to that time? “More direct” implies that at some other point there was a less direct control, and such a statement needs to be cited.

Change: Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[10] his popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.[11][12][13][14][15]

To: For much of his first term, Bush was regarded as a popular president, obtaining at one point the highest approval rating of any US president [I believe that information is correct, but do correct me if I’m mistaken]. His popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.

The term “though” implies that his popularity is overshadowed by his unpopularity. In an unbiased article, that should be left for the reader to decide.

Finally, throughout the discussion (I haven’t scanned through the article for this), contributors have been using the phrase “Mr. Bush.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a former US president keep the title “President”? I understand many people don’t approve of his actions as president, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he was elected president (at least) once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.179.123 (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made the first two changes you suggest, but the others might be worth a bit more discussion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seeing how it's been nearly a month with very little response, I'd like to propose we make the changes I've requested. Anyone against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.179.123 (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, points one and two have been changed. Point four has also been edited so that leaves point 3. You suggest that it needs to be changed, into what comes to mind? Please suggest something to change it into or provide a source for what should be done. Currently, there is little left to discuss. RTRimmel (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If point four was changed, I haven't notcied, as it still reads with the same rhetorical bias since I first made my suggestion: the word "though" implies that one period is overshadowed by another, which is not something we're here to determine. We present the information in a neutral manner, and the reader draws those conclusions.

As for point three (the possible change), I'd just as soon take it out, unless the author or someone else can provide a source that addresses the issue raised: if it is a "more direct control", a basis needs to be established--more direct from what--and that basis needs to be cited. If that can't happen, it should be removed. I feel like I'm repeating myself because apparently some believe "there is little left to discuss" without attempting to address my concerns.

I have added info regarding a branding incident that occurred during Bush's days at Yale. Some may fail to see the significance of this, however it made national news at the time - Bush was quoted in an interview by the New York Times. It was also referenced by arguably the preeminent political cartoonist of the past several decades. It seems that if a later president is quoted by the national media in his college years this is significant. In addition, this sheds light on his views regarding physical abuse, which has obvious import when compared to his presidential record. I suggest full discussion prior to any attempt to revise this out. Manyanswer (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is insignificant info, hazing occurs in all Fraternities and many are controversial. However, you are not forced to do anything, if you want in you get hazed. If you don't want to be branded don't join the Frat. I have seen people initiated into a fraternity by having to consume their own urine. This information is not important enough to include in this article. I am not saying that it should not be known. Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick incident is much more relevant. Rgoss25 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Opinion on hazing is not really relevant. I am glad you are not saying the info shouldn't be known. The relationship to Bush's understanding of what constitutes physical abuse is what's relevant. 76.201.22.247 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The material is not important enough to go into the article. Just because it happened and was reported at the time does not mean it is significant now. If you can find a reliable sources that discuss this in comparison to his presidential record, then that would probably be worth including. As it stands now it is not worth including. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's constructive. This might be one of a set of standards to apply. However, shouldn't we apply that standard to the whole article? Much of the material in there would fail this standard. So, maybe best to have a project to improve the article by placing things below a certain standard into subarticles. Also, since this is in reference to his education (and not the larger record), the standard might be met here by supplying a reference to discussion of it in regards to his education/bio, not presidential record. Manyanswer (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

BTW, thanks again for the constructive comment, but please don't delete content that is actively under discussion. Please Assume Good Faith! See three-revert rule and edit warring Manyanswer (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I completely understand 3RR and I now have 2 reverts and you have 3 in the last 24 and 5 in the last 3 days. At this point the rough consensus is that the material does not belong. 4 editors have removed it and 1 editor keeps replacing it. The material does not need to stay in during an active discussion. The burden is on the editor who initially places the material or replaces the material to show how it is pertinent and so far the material does not have consensus to remain. I am assuming good faith, do not belive the material is vandalism, this is a matter of content dispute. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for at least engaging on the topic. I believe that burden clearly refers to sourcing, not relevance of content. I hope that MSNBC and the New York Times meet that standard. However I am more than willing to engage on relevance. I will comment further below. Manyanswer (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have now found a Yale Daily News article regarding this from 2005, and a Doonesbury political cartoon also from the midpoint of the administration. They tie the relevance directly to the administration's policies. Does that work for you? Manyanswer (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

An opinion piece (cartoon) is not a reliable source to sho that the material is relevant and I can't evaluate what the Yale article says, do you have a link to the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is not really a question of whether the information belongs on wikipedia, but WHERE it belongs. I ask that future comments be directed towards suggestions for where it might best be placed. The main Bush article is a bloated beast. I don't want to contribute to that, but we should start a project to revise it if one truly is vetting the article for info that meets a certain level. Within the education section for example, we are offered that Bush didn't get in to a private school in Texas. Relevant to nothing. So if we're working together here let's propose a general standard and vet the article. If someone suggests my content works better in a subarticle, that might make sense. Manyanswer (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't belong. Adding content regarding a comment about his fraternity days in an attempt to draw a connection to his supposed stance on abuse is not in keeping with WP:NPOV. It could also be seen as synthesis as you attempt to draw unrelated statements of fact together in order to draw a conclusion that isn't stated outright. Again, it simply doesn't belong. --auburnpilot talk 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

What POV am I supposed to be espousing? If someone contributes that Bush vetoed an anti-waterboarding bill, what position would they be taking? Neither for nor against. I am offering insight into his opinions, not judgment of them. Also synthesis doesn't apply - one of the sources does take a position that states explicitly anything that could be inferred. Another I can add also covers both sides of the coin a bit better. Manyanswer (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agree with others here that this has no place on a BLP article. It's fairly trivial at best. Manyanswer's apparently desperation to keep this in through edit warring, reverting multiple editors, is fairly dismaying. Majorly talk 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your vote. I don't think engaging in this consensus building discussion which I started after the second revert constitutes edit warring. But you clearly disagree which is fine. Manyanswer (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

What vote is this you speak of? I haven't voted. And besides, you are clearly edit warring. The five instances in the history of your undoing of other editors' removal of your edits shows this. Majorly talk 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Edit war expicitly states that edit warring is not tied to specific numbers. My further reply is on the report page, a better venue for us to discuss. At least now i understand the misapprehension that led to your report.Manyanswer (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know what an edit war is. You were edit warring. Please don't try and deny it by claiming it's nothing to do with numbers. Majorly talk 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please direct such comments to the appropriate venue as I suggested above. Your entire line of comments starting after "BLP article" layers back is out of place here in a George W. Bush talk page. Manyanswer (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here's the proposed content for anyone looking at POV or other: "During his senior year, Bush's fraternity was accused by the campus newspaper of branding its new members. In an interview with the New York Times, Bush defended the practice, saying the wound was "only a cigarette burn".[reference to 1967 NYTimes article on the matter] [reference to 2004 MSNBC.com article]" I can also now add reference to a Yale Daily News article covering the issue in 2005. Manyanswer (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, that definitely does not belong. You are using completely unrelated events to attempt to prove that President Bush is a hypocrite regarding torture. That is unacceptable and a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Happyme22 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Totally NN uni club hocus pocus. Undue weight. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid the term "NN uni club hocus pocus" needs translating for me. Undue weight is two sentences? This is a fact reported by the preeminent newspaper in the world and covered by several media outlets since. Maybe your argument is that it belongs in a subarticle instead? Manyanswer (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This shows more about your bias than anything. The info is flatly stated. If one were inclined to believe that Bush was right in his judgment (as I am), that is supported by the way this is worded. And as I already pointed out, Synthesis applies when the source does not anticipate or discuss the possible ramifications which is not the case here. Manyanswer (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make sense. And taking jabs at me for "bias" isn't going to further your case. The material that you want to insert is not notable (I presume that is what Yellow Monkey meant by "NN"), and any attempt to "call out" Bush as a hypocrite on torture is unwise and will you will have been using original research in the process. Please, heed the advice from other editors and stop with all this tomfoolery. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agree with consensus, it's a non-notable event that can only be connected to current relevance through original research. It doesn't belong in the article. Dayewalker (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would be a lot more accepting of the consensus if you had reasonable cases. But you are all claiming synthesis when here is a quote from one of the referenced sources:"Trudeau said he penned his very first cartoon to illustrate an article in the Yale Daily News on Bush and allegations that his fraternity, DKE, had hazed incoming pledges by branding them with an iron. A view of ‘torture’? The article in the campus paper prompted The New York Times to interview Bush, who was a senior that year. Trudeau recalled that Bush told the Times “it was just a coat hanger, and ... it didn’t hurt any more than a cigarette burn.” “It does put one in mind of what his views on torture might be today,” Trudeau said." Sorry to include all that but it's as if no one is looking at the sources directly.Manyanswer (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

So are you saying that no one who has responded above has a reasonable explanation as to why it does not belong? Are you the only reasonable person here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.249.232 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

More specifically: the synthesis claim has no merit. See the quote above. Manyanswer (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(OD)As stated above, one mention in an opinion piece is not enough to merit inclusion. Dayewalker (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The sources are MSNBC, the New York Times and Yale Daily News. None is from the op ed page. That user referred to a political cartoon which I no longer propose to cite.Manyanswer (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Citations aside, the material is still not notable. The only thing that this proposed material is attempting to do is label Bush as a hypocrite regarding his views on torture. Manyanswer, please, as I said above, heed the advice from other editors and the overwhelming consensus and stop with all this. Thank you. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no hypocrisy present or implied. What would be hypocritical about this? He says that branding is OK, he says that certain forms of physical treatment are OK in certain circumstances. This is entirely internally consistent. However, it is informative to see his thinking on the general topic at an early age as it sheds further light on his later position.Manyanswer (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia isn't for "shedding light," it's for encyclopedic content. Perhaps I erred earlier when I attempted to be too specific. This point isn't notable enough for inclusion. Consensus is clearly against you on this one, so it would be best to just stop the discussion before you cross over into refusing to get the point. Dayewalker (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a good point to end it. I will close this discussion and state that I am convinced that the consensus opinion to date is that this is not notable in the context of this page. However, I'd like to point out that that is the argument I was looking for in starting the discussion and am happy to accept. I think my points above reveal the spuriousness of other points raised in objection. Synthesis is false and spurious. NPOV is the same. And the reason this is a great point to wrap up is the cycle repeating itself with the accusation of tenditious editing - of a discussion page! Love it. Best to all! Manyanswer (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The following sentence contains three grammatical errors, particularly a dangling modifier and a run-on:

"Eight months into his first term as President, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred and Bush announced a global War on Terrorism, ordered an invasion of Afghanistan that same year and an invasion of Iraq in 2003. " The subject of the sentence is "September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." The pronoun in a prepositoinal phrase refers to the subject of the current sentence, not the previous sentence. The September 11 terrorist attacks were not serving a term as President when they happened. Comma always goes after the year in a date. Lastly, "Bush announced. . . " is a second independent clause, so a comma is required before the "and". It should read: "Eight month's into Bush's first term as President, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred, and Bush announced a global War on Terrorism. . . ." JCHathaway (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC) John C. Hathaway, 2/27/9Reply

OK, let's change it. We are always open to using proper punctuation and grammar. Newguy34 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The 16 reference is broken (Gail Sheehy (October 2000). "The Accidental Candidate". Vanity Fair. http://www.gailsheehy.com/Politics/polimain_bush3.html. Retrieved on May 1, 2008.) It refers to Bush not being accepted to St. John's School. I tried to find a different reliable source but was unable. I am wondering if this should be removed. It seems like a rather trivial piece of information that doesn’t add much to the article. Besides that the fact that is unverifiable. 97.116.17.172 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added a "dead link" tag to footnote #16. Thanks for pointing it out. SMP0328. (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I followed that link not that long ago and it worked. However, the whole sentence needs reworking because as written, who cares if Bush didn't get into that school. The reference was clearer, stating that it was a huge disappointment to Barbara. But someone can just write simply what school he did go to.Manyanswer (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article was hosted on the author's website that is down. For some reason I couldn't find the article when I searched for "St. John's School" on Vanity Fair's website but searching for the article title on Google did the trick. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2000/10/bush200010?currentPage=1 The relevant information is on page 5. I can completely understand mentioning it from Manyanswer's reasoning. Could someone switch the link and add the relevance of the information? 97.116.17.172 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

To compared the popularity among Arabs of a U.S. president and an Israeli prime minister tells us nothing about Bush. After all, we can't compare it to similar polls held when, say, Clinton or Reagan was president. Moreover, I find the whole idea of polling people in undemocratic countries questionable. Their own governments don't care what they think, why should we? Kauffner (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I edited this statement because the source didn't even say that Bush was three times as unpopular as Sharon among the Arab respondents. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

After all the bruhaha related to the article on Obama, I realize that there are many of the rules broken on this article. In order to comply to the Wikipedia rules, these things should be removed 1)As a child, Bush was not accepted for admission by St. John's School in Houston, Texas, a prestigious private school. What does this have to do with anything? Breaks relevancy rule

2)In 1970, Bush applied to, but was not accepted into, the University of Texas School of Law. Once again, relevancy rule

3) Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance. I learned from the Obama site that this type of comment is not allowed. Since the administrators of Wikipedia have decided that Ayers and Wright were not certral to Obama's campaign, then that ruling should also be applied here.

4) According to The Atlantic Monthly, the race "featured a rumor that she was a lesbian, along with a rare instance of such a tactic's making it into the public record—when a regional chairman of the Bush campaign allowed himself, perhaps inadvertently, to be quoted criticizing Richards for 'appointing avowed homosexual activists' to state jobs."[49] This is a fringe theory, and it doesn't even directly involve Bush

5) The South Carolina campaign was controversial for the use of telephone poll questions implying that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child with an African-American woman.[56] Once again, this is a fringe theory on which major news sources did not report.

I did not read the entire article, but just through presidential campaigns. I believe that Wikipedia should follow it's own rules regardless of the popularity of the person by the administrators

Sincerely,

Elise Eaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.9.63 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Points 1 and two are not massivly signifigant unless they can be proven to have shaped some of Bush's beliefs/life etc. Point 3 may be relevant and should remain if properly cited.

Points 4 and 5 are cited and provide insight into the character of George W Bush as well as his campaigning style. Thee tactics won him elections and whitewashing them out of his article doesn't do anyone any services. As for being Fringe, point 4 has a quoted source from a major Texas newspaper, which is fitting for an article about the governor of Texas and point five was covered by the Boston Globe, amoung others. So claiming they were not reported by major newspapers is just plain inaccurate. RTRimmel (talk) 19:33p, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1 and 2 are irrelevant. What schools Bush didn't get into are not notable to his charsacter. As for 3, what specifically did you learn was not permissble? I don't know much about 4 but 5 was very well known. It's not a "fringe theory", but an accepted fact, reported by many mainstream newspapers.--Loodog (talk) 23:43, 9 March 20 09 (UTC)

No. 5 does not belong in a BLP about Bush. Perhaps in an article about the 2008 presidential primaries, but unless there is a reliable source that says Bush himself made the calls (or publicly made the claim), it simply is a controversial and trivial edit, which according to the header at the top of this very talk page should be removed. Wikipedia is not about "providing insight" into one's character, as doing so is obviously subjective. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not psychology. Newguy34 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_60#Rumors_and_Facts Prior consensus was to keep it. Since you were a prior participant in the discussion to keep it, why did you change your mind? RTRimmel (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I recall, that discussion focused on the wording of the content. It was not a discussion over whether to keep or delete the material, rather it focused on how to word it. Happyme22 (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looking at that archive, one can clearly see that my viewpoint then was exactly as it is now. I acquieced in the spirit of assuming good faith, which I now realize was a miscalculation on my part, given the flurry of partisan attacks wrapped in NPOV. Besides, that was then, this is now. I am not aware of any Wiki rules prohibiting revisiting the issue. Newguy34 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, so the fact that most newspapers, political analysis and even John McCain consider the slanderous 2000 South Carolina Primary to have won Bush the Republican nomination, we can't mention it because its a "partisan attacks wrapped in NPOV"? It gets full paragraphs in several articles involving the 2000 presidential elections. No one disputes that it happened. Nor does anyone dispute that it was a significant contributor to Bush to win the nomination. At minimum, its worth a sentence in Bush's BLP... which is what it got.

• Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2000
• United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Candidates_gallery_2
• Push_poll
• Negative_campaigning#United_States

Despite what some editors would think, this is a relativity significant event from Bush's political carer and is used, repeatedly, in a great number articles in the wiki. As well, Google shows hundreds credible news sources that mention the push poll or the slanderous 2000 South Carolina primary. So Newguy34's base argument of the sentence being trivial is, on its face, nonsensical in the weight of the examples an editor can bring to bear in short order. Due to this, it merits inclusion in Bush BLP. The existing sentence is sourced to a significant newspaper. Subtraction editing to whitewash Bush's political tactics do little to educate.RTRimmel (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

[Outdent] All fabulous work here RTR. Very detailed and pursuasive, and perfect for inclusion in Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2000, or United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Candidates_gallery_2, or Push_poll, or even Negative_campaigning#United_States. But, wholly inappropriate for a BLP, regardless of how many google hits it gets. No whitewashing here. Wiki is about neutrality. You have shown your unwillingness to adhere to this basic principle. Newguy34 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid wp:personal attacks. Accusing me of not following neutrality is also against Wp:Civil and WP:Assume_good_faith. All come from the 2000 presidential primary that Bush was in, his name comes up in all of them... but we shouldn't mention it here because its not neutral. Okay. Lets let another editor look at this and determine if it should merit inclusion. Happy, what's your take on this. Is it worthy of one sentence given Bush is a central figure in it or not? RTRimmel (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

And, what is accusing me of being nonsensical? Be careful, lest the hypocracy prevails. Now, to the point, did Bush say any of what you claim? No, which is exactly why this type of partisan attempt at guilt by association has no place in any BLP. Newguy34 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

[undent]Okay, I'm not following your logic here so lets look at the other Presidential BLP's for guidance.

• George_H._W._Bush#1988_presidential_campaign With Dole ahead in New Hampshire, Bush ran television commercials portraying the senator as a tax raiser;[33] he rebounded to win the state's primary
• Bill_Clinton#Democratic_presidential_primaries_of_1992 During the campaign for the New Hampshire Primary reports of an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers surfaced. As Clinton fell far behind former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in the New Hampshire polls,[14] following the Super Bowl, Clinton and his wife Hillary went on 60 Minutes to refute the charges. Their television appearance was a calculated risk but Clinton regained several delegates.
• George_W._Bush#2000_Presidential_candidacyHowever, the Bush campaign regained momentum and, according to political observers, effectively became the front runner after the South Carolina primary.[55] The South Carolina campaign was controversial for the use of telephone poll questions implying that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child with an African-American woman.[56]

Bush 41 certainly didn't say Dole was a tax raiser, his campaign did. The Clinton's didn't say Bill had an affair, someone accused him of that. Bush didn't say that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child, someone accused McCain of that. In all 3 cases the candidate won. Bush took advantage of a bad situation for McCain... there is nothing wrong with what. I'm not accusing Bush or Bush's campaign of anything nor does the sentence in question place blame on Bush nor does the source. But Bush did take advantage of it and Bush did win the election so YOU are reading too much into the sentence. It is not some "partisan attacks wrapped in NPOV", its just a sentence about the turning point in the 2000 primary. Please WP:Assume_Good_Faith and lets move on. RTRimmel (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If similar points are in those articles, they are points for editors of those articles to deal with. We are talking about this BLP. Just because similar material may be in those articles is a question of appropriateness of the information there, not support for the inclusion of like information here. You know that the rules for BLPs are much, much different than the rules for other articles. This sanctimonious attempt at guilt by association is not appropriate in a BLP and borders on slander. Show me the reliable source that says Bush, himself, said the things you claim, not merely that he benefitted from them. We can both assume good faith until we are blue in the face, but this edit is not appropriate for any BLP. As to good faith, if you are "not accusing Bush or Bush's campaign of anything nor does the sentence in question place blame on Bush nor does the source," why the accusation of "whitewashing"? Newguy34 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

So I just read through BLP rules again to see if 2 other articles were done incorrectly. According to BLP rules, WP:WELLKNOWN permits this. So the sentence in question falls within Wikipedia Guidelines, is verified from a reliable source, and is noteworthy and therefor it should be returned to the article. RTRimmel (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Perhaps I am not making my point clear. Bush didn't do anything related to this. He wasn't the one who accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate child (you are surely not claiming so, right?). Someone else said it and, yes, it helped turn the tide of the election (presumably). But, this fact pattern is very different than what is discussed in WP:WELLKNOWN. I have already said that the material is acceptable for inclusion in an article about the campaign primaries, or one about push polling, or one about campaign tactics. But, it still fails to be includable in a BLP. PLus, I am confused. You cite an example in WP:WELLKNOWN about information that is damaging to or critical of the subject of a BLP, but earlier you claimed that you were "not accusing Bush or Bush's campaign of anything nor does the sentence in question place blame on Bush nor does the source." Which is it? Either you think the information is critical or you don't. I am having trouble determining which from your inconsistent statements on the matter. Newguy34 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bush did do something related to this. Bush won and this was the turning point as noted but dozens of sources. WP:WELLKNOWN spells out that this is permissible. Bush took a bad situation and turned it to his advantage and that was the situation. I have been highly consistant on this, you have been refusing to get the point. You have changed your position about 3 times now, maybe more its been hard to follow your evasive logic. Lets just get a moderator in here and have them review the article and see if they belive it is permissible. You are running around in circles trying to back your argument which isn't supported in policy. RTRimmel (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, please spare us all. You have been refusing to get the point (there, do you feel better? I don't.). You don't have the monopoly on understanding Wikipedia or its policies. Your constant "holier-than-thou" attitude masks the weakness of your argument. Me thinks you have an axe to grind, inasmuch as you have admitted just that. You haven't reconciled your previous comments, opting instead for throwing up your hands and accusing me of failing to get the point. You haven't shown me how I have changed my position "about 3 [sic] times now." You haven't disproven my logic, at all. Newguy34 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If points 4 and 5 are cited by major newspapers, then why are Bill Ayers and Obama's citizenship conspiracy not mentioned at all. They were major issues, and covered by major newspapers. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is the talk page for the GWBush article. If you have a complaint about the Obama article, you need to find Talk:Barack Obama. Best, --auburnpilot talk 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am comparing the two articles, and wondering why in one article one thing is omitted, while in another a similar incident (several, actually) are. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Take it to the Obama page. But, the short answer is that neither of the events you are mentioning had a material impact on Obama's life or candidacy. Obama won, so trivial campaign points are moot. If they had made the race somewhat close, then they would possibly merit inclusion. If they had taken Obama from the top and suddenly shifted McCain to a win they would certainly be relevant. As it sits, Obama won by a decisive margin and therefor they don't matter. In the reverse, both points 4 and 5 took Bush from a disadvantage and turned it into a win that had long term impact into his person and therefor are signifigant. Its a portion of WP:Undue_Weight in that Ayres and the Citizenship thing don't have enough for general inclusion because they cost Obama nothing and points 4 and 5 do, as they helped Bush win a Governorship and a Presidency. RTRimmel (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• An argument might be made for removing points 1 and 2. Points 3, 4, and 5 are relevant to his campaign tactics as a candidate and have reliable sources, thus are encyclopedic, relevant, and seem verified, and should remain. Wikipedia is not a highly polished puff piece to say only what supporters of a public figure want to see. Edison (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not so. BLPs are not the same as other articles. The material is appropriate in an article about the campaign, but not in his BLP. Newguy34 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:WELLKNOWN it directly contradicts what you've just said. RTRimmel (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

WP:WELLKNOWN discusses whether the actions of the subject of a BLP, not the actions of others than may benefit the subject of a BLP, are includable in that subject's BLP. There is no contradiction. Newguy34 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Really, WP:WELLKNOWN disagrees with you. If your opinion is right then George_H._W_Bush and Bill Clinton's articles are both wrong and the editors who participated in them were all wrong and the admins who review them were all wrong and this article was wrong for the better part of a year with no complaints from anyone until you jumped on it. If you are wrong, they all read the policy the same way I'm reading it. The opening sentence of WP:WELLKNOWN is In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. The proposed sentence meets those criteria. RTRimmel (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, really, it doesn't. Your slippery slope argument fails to support your assertion. And, if a million people were wrong, that doesn't mean we should perpetuate that error. If we want to start quoting Wiki's policies:

• Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States (so, no slander or libel)[emphasis added] and to all of our content policies.
• Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically (so, not about the subject's campaign)[emphasis added]. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association
• Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these.

The material does not belong in this BLP, which is what we are talking about here. Plain and simple. Newguy34 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed the following from the article:

A March 2007 survey of Arab opinion conducted by Zogby International and the University of Maryland found that Bush was the most disliked leader in the Arab world. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=594|title=Middle East Opinion: Iran Fears Aren't Hitting the Arab Street|author=Peter Kiernan|date=March 1, 2007|publisher=World Politics Review Exclusive}}</ref>

The reason I removed it was that the statement lacked context. We do not know how the same respondents would have evaluated any other U.S. president under similar circumstances. We do know that the same respondents rated Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah as their most popular leader, hence implying such a disconnect from popular opinion in the U.S. as to be essentially useless for Bush's purposes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is a sourced opinion poll about Bush, during Bush's presidency. You are applying too much context here. This would be useless unless it was the foreign perceptions section, which is where it was. If we apply your standards to polls, we are going to lose 3/4's of them, if not more. So we need to be consistent and remove all of them, after discussion on the talk page, or leave up sourced references that are pertinent to the sections they are in. RTRimmel (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply