Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 3 July 2008

This article, George W. Bush, has frequently become the subject of controversies and criticisms regarding his presidency. While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on George W. Bush. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

	George W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 27, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 24, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted February 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George W. Bush article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Military history: Aviation / Biography / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Baseball Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Connecticut This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Template:USP-Article Template:WP1.0 United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: John J. Miller (2008-04). "Liberal Web". National Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George W. Bush article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:FAOLTemplate:Maintained

"More dangerous than Kim Jong-il" statement?

Hello

I am not a wikipedia expert, and I am certainly no supporter of George Bush. But the following remark seems exaggerated to me. "" Historical American allies such as France and Britain have held remarkably unfavorable opinions of Bush, with many believing him to be more dangerous than Kim Jong-il. ""

I think the article from which this information is taken distorts slightly the results of the poll on which it is based, for the following reasons :

• this exact poll comparing him to kim Jong-il was only made in great britain (thus contradicts the "many allies" part)
• The polls did not ask which was more dangerous, but which was a greater danger to peace. "Being a danger to peace" is not the same as "being dangerous".

I replaced the phrase with the following, which I think reflects more the polls cited as reference in the article.

New :

"" Historical American allies such as France and Britain have held remarkably unfavorable opinions of Bush, with a 2006 poll even showing that britons were considering him more a danger to peace than Kim Jong-il. ""

Camille Lambert (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

After rephrasing your remarks you still left out Germany as a major ally. Don't know why. Besides that, my answer was to your original post so I won't rephrase mine. Besides that you might be right with that specific poll and I'll look into it at some point. --Floridianed (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I apologize, but I noticed my post was very confusing and not clear at all. Regarding Germany, in fact I was focussing on the second part of the sentence and did not want to get involved in the first part for fear of making a mistake. I saw that someone deleted the Kim Jong-Il part anyway, which is not bad because it felt like a little bit of trivia.. Camille Lambert (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1st, you forgot Germany wich is a major ally (not regarding the Iraq war also like France). Sidenote: Spain's goverment under Aznar was a contributing ally but without support of the people of Spain. The majority (It was at least 70%) was against it.

2nd, If you dislike the poll from 2006 you're right, newer polls would be different and would make Bush show even worse then in 2006. So my Question to you is: Do you really want to go into that issue and make it even worth for him (and that would mean, you have to come up with a reliable source to back it up) or just leave it as it is? You make the choice (as long as it doesn't interfere with WP-guidelines. --Floridianed (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

did you mean "worse" ? Camille Lambert (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it. Guess sometimes I'm with stupid  :) --Floridianed (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the edit that rewords my statement of notable dissent (England and France, our allies) into a meaningless "teach the controversy" statement which calls his perception "mixed" (lumping France in with Iran, and surprise surprise, Israel supports Bush as they have all previous American presidents since 1948). You don't need to be a poli sci major to know that England's frosty relations are more notable than Iran's. Shii (tock) 06:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Domestic Policy Section

In the domestic policy section it states, "The Dow Jones Industrial Average has grown by about 30 percent since January 2001." This statement is false. It is cited from Yahoo finance. According to Yahoo finance, as of June 12th 2008 the Dow Jones Industrial Avg closed at 12,142. When GWB took office on Jan 20th 2001 the DJ had last closed at 10,578 on Jan 18th 2001. That is an overall increase of 14.7% over 7 1/2 years and an annual increase (based on 7 1/2 years) of 1.97%. On June 13th 2008, Washington Mutual was offering online saving accounts with an annual interest rate of 3.25%. When Bill Clinton took office on Jan 20th 1993 the DJ opened at 3,255. When he left office the DJ had closed at 10,578. An overall increase of 225% and an annual increase of 28.2%. Jeff1791 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)J.Haddad

Well, put it in. Just use the straight numbers and if you want to use a comparison I'd use a 10, 20 or 60 year one (all of which show the economic growth under bush's tax cuts to be anemic), rather than comparing it to just Clinton as that will bring up claims of POV and show that the Tax cuts have done what was projected by most economists from the start and slowed growth, driven up inflation and devalued the dollar. RTRimmel (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He can't, he's not autoconfirmed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Offshore Drilling

Bush is to ask Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/06/17/2008-06-17T235201Z_01_N17395073_RTRIDST_0_BUSH-ENERGY-UPDATE-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8"Jobby (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can this be added to the Environmental policy sub section? 8"Jobby (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how they are going to spin this as current estimates indicate that 25 billion barrels of oil are available in the 'limited' areas that are allowed for drilling and less than 17% of them are being used? If only 17% of the current area, the easiest to access and the cheapest to drill from(in most cases), is being used why will opening up more decrease cost? Alternatively, why don't they use the 44 million of open acres in the already authorized drilling land in the continental US? Historically land based oil is always less expensive than off shore oil anyway. The only reason that I see it as a valid environmental concern is that A: We already have millions of acres available for drilling that are not being used and B: The areas where they want to drill will impact fishing/tourism/in shipping lanes and other economic areas meaning that it will cost jobs while unused oil fields are sitting off in more economic areas to drill anyway? It sounds like a load of BS to me, but hey with $4.00 gas I suppose its a point. RTRimmel (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/134047/614/81/537906

It should be added, but perhaps it should be added under the economic section, not the the environmental section. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that 8"Jobby (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC) And to attempt to answer your point Rimmel; Land drilling - that ship has sailed and there is no way it could happen. Although slight, the chance of offshore drilling happening is better. Thing is, it'll take at least 10 years before that oil is at the pump. Hopefully we'll be coming off fossil fuel by then.....

This whole thing is significant though, as it's Bush's last play so to speak. He doesn't have much (or any!) political capital left, so this is just another attempt to make crony oil buddies happy before he goes back into the private sector. 8"Jobby (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the Daily Kos to be a reliable source. A strongly politically or ideologically based website is not a good place to find objective facts. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Daily Kos" is indeed not a reliable source but the fact that "...oil companies already have under lease 68 million acres on federal lands and waters _ outside the ban area _ that are not being developed." is well reported and more research needs to be done before including this issue in this and McCain's article. --Floridianed (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

UN didn't assert Iraq in Possession of WDMs. In fact just the opposite was true

Quote in original article: "In March 2003, Bush along with the UN and Congress asserted Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and ordered the invasion of Iraq."

1) The U.N. did not assert Iraq had WDMs. In fact just the opposite was true. As reported by Hans Blix and Mohaned ElBardei to the U.N. Security Council on February 14, 2002; "How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed."

2) UN inspector were in Iraq just prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq. It was for the safety of the U.N. inspectors that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered all U.N. inspectors, U.N. support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers out of Iraq after U.S. threaten to launch war. This event occurred after Bush failed to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq and after Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq or face U.S. invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthandjustice (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He is right. I noticed the error yesterday (or the day before yesterday), and I removed it. The source that is provided with the error does not state that the UN believed Iraq had WMDs in March 2003. The error was probably a case of someone sneakly vandalising the page, by adding a source next to the error in question.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Publication, literacy and reading section

The section on "Publication, literacy and reading" is quite odd. It's trivial at best, incomplete and poorly composed at worst. I think it's best to remove it at this time. Majoreditor (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. So I deleted that section for the reasons stated above. I also moved the "Assassination attempt" sub-subsection so that it's just before the "Other matters" sub-subsection (which seems like hub for miscellaneous material). --SMP0328. (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine

I do not see any information regarding George Bush's history regarding cocaine usage. I would think there would be. Steve (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Texas Air National Guard subsection of the Childhood to mid-life section there's a reference to illegal drug use (no express mention of cocaine). That subsection also links to George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Huge vandalism

I just repaired a very large piece of vandalism, the revision history has the original page that was made by "UnitedStatesian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac4213 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the users profile page, and his actual edit, it seems it was made by someone else who just didn't sign their edits ~ Zac4213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac4213 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Poll replacement

I noticed some recent edits giving Bush as 23% approval rating as opposed to the 28% we had up there. The Gallup poll is the gold standard for polls and the 28% Gallup gives him the worst approval rating (and highest disapproval rating) of any President in US history. The existing high point is also a Gallup number and the highest approval rating in history. Putting in another poll at this point is kind of redundant unless its another Gallup one. We can always use the ARG 19% approval rating if we just want to make Bush look bad, but we are officially kicking a dead horse here. Worst ever is worst ever, going lower is well... blah at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use the Bloomburg poll you'll have to change the preceding sentence which correctly states Bush's highest and lowers approval ratings of any US President. At this point, we understand he is hideously unpopular (again most unpopular President in US history) and anything more than this is beating a dead horse. RTRimmel (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please vote for Barack Obama.

Please vote for Barack Obama. He's a Democrat. Why? Because he's much better than Senator John McCain, who happens to be a Republican. So please vote for Barack Obama to be our next President of the United States. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• GA-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• GA-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• GA-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• GA-Class Baseball articles
• Mid-importance Baseball articles
• WikiProject Baseball articles
• GA-Class Connecticut articles
• Unknown-importance Connecticut articles
• WikiProject Connecticut articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• Texas articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• United States presidential elections articles with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press