Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 57

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

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Economic data

In the article it's said "Inflation-adjusted median household income was flat while the nation's poverty rate increased", while in the source nothing of the sort's said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Its on page 18 of the source, it basically says that the adjusted income increased less than one percent (significantly less) and poverty increased several percentages. Anything less than a percent is considered flat in economic terms. I believe that the quote is lifted directly from somewhere in that 88 page document, but the document clearly supports the sentence that he included. If necessary I'll pop 3 or 4 more cites into the article that quote from that so that its more obvious but the short is the Economy didn't do very well under Bush. Whether or not that is Bush's fault is debatable, but the fact that is performed poorly is not. RTRimmel (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In the source it's said that the real median income between 2004 and 2005 increased by 1.1%. On page 20 it's said: "the official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2005." So the data in the article contradicts the source.Sasha best (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting bout of selective reading. The next sentence is "After 4 years of consecutive

increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005— higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available" Which seems to support the sources. I'll go out and find a simpler source that says the same thing if you dislike the official census pages so much. Since Bush's term is over, I'll get a 2000-2008 numbers as the current numbers are overly generous. RTRimmel (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is responsible for material edits to this page?

From time to time I have checked on this page and (at times) it seems to try to be honest with the facts. But other times I have to say it misses the mark.

A few years ago Mr. Bush's primary bio was accurate but it seems to have been changed. I'm just wondering why.

In my opinion there has been an ongoing attempt to paint this man as something of a "dunce" and minimizes his education and experience. To that end I would bring your attention to the missing reference to his Harvard education and post graduate degree in Business Administration.

I don't know about you, but Harvard is one of the hardest schools to get into, and the business schools if one of the hardest schools to get into at Harvard.

I think it would give a more accurate impression of the man's education if the reference to his FULL educational credentials be replaced in the primary bio rather than relegated to two words half way down the article.

Thank you, A. Renner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renner95634 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.
--A. Renner (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that GW Bush is not as dumb as some have made him out to be. A Harvard education is by no means a gimme, no matter who your father and grand father were. It comes down to linguistics sometimes. He sounds and speaks like the southerner he is. He is laid back in his articulation of the english language. Obama is just the opposite. Obama doesn't have a southern drawl, so he must automatically must be smarter than everyone else. My opinion is that Bush's education is very relevant to the article and should be readded.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel improvements need to be made to the article, I recommend you make them when you can. SMP0328. (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush is a southerner? Isn't he actually from Conneticut? The southern drawls is probably fake. While I agree he probably isn't as dumb as his words or his actions would leave you to believe, he is definitely at least trying to act dumb, and we should give him some credit for that, by portraying him as a dunce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.29.3 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush was born in Connecticut, but shortly afterwards (and at a very young age) was moved to Texas and raised there. I think that qualifies him as a southerner, without the trolling insults from 75.34.29.3 who seems to have both a spelling and a grammar problem. Newguy34 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Second-generation President

Is George W. the only President that was a child (or grandchild) or a former President? This is noteable historic trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.213.209 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams; Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You see, this just shows that students are not learning enough history.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all students :) SGGH ^ping! 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush's Historical Ranking.

It is my belief, that due to the recent survey completed by CSPAN, we should ad the following to President Bush's wikipedia page.

Bush successfully ran for re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004, garnering 50.7% of the popular vote to his opponent's 48.3%. After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism.[5][6][7] In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with widespread criticism of its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession,[8] and his administration took more direct control of the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages. Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[9] his popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low. Bush has been ranked as one of the worst Presidents.

It says the same on many of the other President's pages who have also been ranked as the worst U.S. Presidents. Why should Bush be any diffenet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanshreds1 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that is not what we have agreed upon. There are many problems with your proposed addition:

First off, you don't have a source. I think you're referring to this and this, but just because it was advertised does not make it some magical, tell-all poll. It is an ordinary assessment done by 65 historians; it is not a public opinion poll, or anything of that like. That is not to say historians do not matter, but they should be given equal weight as public opinion polls, such as Gallup.
Your wording is subjective -- "by whom?" "when?" "why?" -- it doesn't answer any of those questions. A few weeks ago, I removed a lot of the polling information from the lead because it was not adhering to WP:LEAD, rather the entire last one-third of the lead was talking about polls. I agreed not to insert the "best" or "worst" clauses of the sentence because things need to be kept general (FYI, Bush received the highest approval ratings ever recorded in 2001).
The lead is supposed to generalize what is said in the article, not get bogged down in certain fields.

Perhaps we could mention the poll in the "public perception" section, but definitely not in the lead. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On top of all of that, the poll is way too recent. When I first saw the ballot, I was surprised that Bush was even on it. It usually takes time for these type of polls to become accurate. Recent presidents usually favor too high or too low in such polls. A similar poll done in the 1950's placed Harry Truman in the bottom rung, while he is top ten now. Go Figure. A poll done in the mid 60's had Kennedy much higher than he is today. My professional opinion is that the ranking is usually skewed for at least two generations. At that point, new historians come in and look at the situations with differant eyes.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, they changed methodologies in the intervening time and many of his policies actually played out. But fortunately, second guessing reliable sources and crystal balling deep into the future are two of the core pillars of Wikipedia so we can safely ignore this poll for 40 years or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Truman's rating by historians was always in the top 10 from what I remember. Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents give's his lowest place at #9 as of '62 and historians consistantly ranked him pretty well. It was Gallup and similar public opinion polls that are used to paint him in a bad light despite all of his hardship and achievements while in office. Gallup was also wrong on the whole Dewey Beats Truman results as well, using a flawed methodology. Its also not likly they changed that methodology between then and giving him the lowest approval number on record so take it for what its worth. So if you want to chose between a bunch of historian who use a standardized methodology and a public opinion with a known flawed methodology, be my guest. Check out Gallup bias, there are so many articles on it that I couldn't tell you which one to read, but the general consensis is that after Gallup's death in 84... the poll went signifigantly downhill. In the 2008 elections, it was high by 2.17% on average for the incumbant and one of the least accurate major polls, CNN was more accurate, and if you think about that the demonstrated margin of error for Gallup concerning Bush's approval ratings is greater than the different between his highest and the second highest approval rating but I digress. Second, I never agreed to do anything other that watch other editors continue to edit your attempt at the lead and the results are actually better than I anticipated with only 4 or 5 reverts so far in 3 weeks though I still feel that it whitewashes his acomplishments.

Truman's article ends with "At different points in his presidency, Truman earned both the highest and the lowest public approval ratings that had ever been recorded.[2][3][4] Despite negative public opinion during his term in office, popular and scholarly assessments of his presidency became more positive after his retirement from politics and the publication of Truman's memoirs. Truman's legendary upset victory in 1948 over Thomas E. Dewey is routinely invoked by underdog presidential candidates. Truman has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents. " So ours certinatly has a precident for ending it with a scholarly opinion if we are going to be throwing Truman's name around, one would think. RTRimmel (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You cite the 1962 poll, probably by looking it up on wikipedia no doubt. I remember a 1950's poll, that was taken. Give a chance and I will drudge it up.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So now we are questionging refrenced source from Wikipedia? If you can find the poll you might want to dump it on Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents and see if it passes their criteria as they are more up on polls than most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked around and I just realized that the information that I am searching for is in my biography about Truman. I loaned out the book, and can't give exact numbers just yet, but I will have it back soon enough. The point was, the ranking is way too soon on Bush, He hasn't even been out of office a month yet. Give it time, the numbers may surpise even you.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that line of thought it that several of the criteria that his numbers are built on are terrible. His economic performance is near the bottom, for example. No amount of lipstick is gonna make this pig that pretty, but I'll check out your source when you present it. I'd, of course, prefer a poll with an online component so that it can be properly reviewed without a trip to the library but I'd also like an expresso machine... RTRimmel (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Africa

The President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief should be mentioned in the article. i actually came to read this article to find out more about it but was surprised that this article had nothing !!! here's one source for a start http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While not presented very prominently the emergency plan is indeed mentioned in the article. More detailed informations are available here: President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief. Also check Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 56#U.S._President.27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief for a previous discussion. —Armin B. Wagner (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a busted source in the lead.

I was reading the lead and noticed that there was a statement that said that this was the 2nd longest post WW2 recession. It was cited and I was curious as to what the source was. I clicked on citation #8 in the lead and then clicked on its on-line source. It is a broken link, that has no source. I am sure that it can be fixed, or another reliable source can be found. Can someone who cares to do so, please do?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Presently, the recession is expected to last 16 or so months, though take that with a very large grain of salt. The recession has lasted something like 14 months and has no chance of ending prior to the 16 month mark, and unless the stimulus plan works far better than anticipated we can expect it to go on longer than that. The recession is actually the worst since the great depression according to the vast and overwhelming number of sources but because a small wikipedia:fringe seem to think that its not so bad we're trying to come up with alternate wording to explain that its bad without saying that. The problem with comparisons is that the Great Depression was freaking terrible and while this recession is bad its certainly not approaching the same league. I would state that its closest to the 1980's recession, and you can make a bunch of broad comparisons between the two. Now the problem is that the 1980's recession didn't have trillions of dollars of government bailouts in it, and whats worse a bad recession or a bad recession that you spent trillions of dollars on? I gotta go to work, I'll dig up a source later. I think there are a few later on the page actually, and about a million on the internet. RTRimmel (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Understanding, of course, that the fact the government is dumping billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars of spending doesn't in-and-of-itself make the current recession better or worse than the 80's (i.e., government spending is not a measure of the severity of the recession, merely a measure of the political attempts to deal with it). Newguy34 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Several major schools of economic theory would disagree with you. Further as that money is being borrowed and the national debt is one of the tracked variables in most recession planning systems, so would I. RTRimmel (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, and which major schools of economic theory believe that the severity of a recession is measured by how much the government decides to intervene? Isn't it a question of the symptoms of increased unemployment, reduced retail sales, increased foreclosures, weekly jobless claims, etc., rather than the arbitrary (and, as yet, unproven) prescription of government spending that helps us measure how bad a recession is? For example, if the government did nothing and let the markets work it out (novel concept) would that make the severity of the recession any less? Of course not. Newguy34 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, the the increase of the debt of the country experiencing the recession is one of those pesky tracked numbers for a recession so the rest of your statement here is a red herring. Enjoy fishing by yourself here, I'm not getting sucked into another pointless debate with you. But seriously, so if we have a bad recession that the market works out and leaves us in the same debt position, that is equivalent to a recession that significantly increases our national debt as a percentage of GDP but is otherwise the same? Seriously? RTRimmel (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Too funny. Once again, my friend, you are completely missing the point. You were the one that asserted there were several major schools of economic thought, yada, yada. I am merely asking you to support your statement by telling me which schools of economic thought you are referring to, but instead you lob another lame attempt at an insult. Your logic is at fault. The severity of anything is never measured by the actions applied to deal with that thing. The symptoms determine the severity, not the prescription. Help me understand what of that logical fact is so confusing? Newguy34 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting you have difficulty following basic logic, you misquote it enough so I should have realized. You want a school, Lets start by lobbing out a basic school like Keynsian, now its been supplanted by New Keynesian or Neo-Keynisan economic theory or Post Keynisan economics or others, so many others really but I digress, but one of the basic thrusts of them is that government investment into the economy can bring about prosperity. Please don't take the easy road here and spout off conservative radio talking points about how Keynesian economics is defunct or that Tax Cuts always cause jobs, you should have higher standards. AGAIN, part of tracking a recession is to examine Debt_to_GDP_ratio, which is AGAIN a common economic measure, and therefor If we have a recession that is otherwise similar to another on several key terms BUT the ratio of Debt_to_GDP_ratio increases significantly then the recession with the higher increase in ratio is a worse recession assuming all other variables are approximately similar. To reiterate, the symptoms of a recession INCLUDE the increase of Debt_to_GDP_ratio so therefor it is a pretty easy conclusion for most educated individuals who can follow a line of logic, IE a recession that has a increase of Debt_to_GDP_ratio that is larger than another recession... then that recession is worse. So given that the recession in the 80's has a LOWER ratio but the other statistics are reasonably similar, it can be argued quite easily that the current financial crisis is worse. Perhaps not massively worse, but regardless on what your perception of the significance of Debt_to_GDP_ratio, it is worse. Its not that complex. To explain further in terms you MIGHT understand, The symptoms INCLUDE Debt_to_GDP_ratio, and the prescription is, at this time, government spending. The government spending increases the Debt_to_GDP_ratio. RTRimmel (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am going to type this real slow in the hopes that you will read it likewise in your frothed up personal attack mode. First, you refuse to answer the question. Then, you answer the question incorrectly (or answer the incorrect question; I can't tell which from your babbles.) Comical? Yes. Why? Because the stub Wiki article you linked to no less than seven times says nothing about using Debt_to_GDP_ratio as a measure of the severity of a recession. In its two sentences (and less than 100 words) it merely gives a definition of how the term is used and, presumably, why it is unbiased. But, there is nothing (read, not one thing) to support your argument in there or in this talk page. Hell, there's not even a reference to a reliable source, if memory serves. I'm the one that has a problem with logic, huh? Black pot please meet the kettle. What we have here is a bunch of your twisted logic, WP:OR, synthesis and myopia. So much so that I'm not even sure where to go with this. So, you win by default. Congrats! I am unable to fend off the advances from your oddly-superior intellect and mastery of the basic principles of logical discourse. I will, however, continue to revert sneaky edits from any POV editor grinding their axe for use against the former president's BLP, while warmly wrapping themselves in the bunk of "keeping an open mind." Newguy34 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Branding Incident

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Grammar

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, 2/27/9

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

Criticism

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)

Well, Criticism of George W. Bush didn't fit the article - it got one on its own. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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-hexa Chord ² 10:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Broken reference

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)

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

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)

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)

Bush vs Sharon

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)

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)

This article violates Wikipedia rules

Resolved, presumably, after much discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

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)

See Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_56#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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

[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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your 'logic' is carefully constructed to be unable to be disproven. Its your usual tactic. You said the stituation was trivial, I demonstrated that it wasn't. You claimed that it was unimportant, I demonstrated importantce. You assumed that such information should not be in any BLP's, and I showed other BLP's that have similar information. To quote Happyme, "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 ..." Its in Archive 56, where you were arguing on the other side of this issue. We are moving in circles here, lets go to the bottom for resolution here. RTRimmel (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

The source is Boston Globe that is not considered tabloid journalism, there are reporting on a phone call that has been recorded. Since the sentence is not directed at Bush or McCain, and is demonstratedly proven to be accurate, it does not slander or libel of Bush, or anyone. RTRimmel (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

The sentence in question was sourced and there are hundreds of sources that are from such tabloid rags as the Boston Glove, the NY Times, Fox News, CNN, etc. If they are tabloid, we have further issues as these sources are used, repeatedly, througout the article. RTRimmel (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The source is discussing the South Carolina Primary. The prior sentence refrences the South Carolina primary. So a sentence saying Bush won the controversial south carolina primary would fall within this term, you removed that. The previous sentence that said Bush won the primary. The primary was controvertial isn't too far off. RTRimmel (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

Again, the sources include many many many major newspapers, networks etc. It has been repeatedly mentioned as signifigant on the Wiki. It was a highly controversial primary and the push poll was the main reason in that, according to many many experts. RTRimmel (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

And you are wrong, according to the BLP policies, Plain and Simple. RTRimmel (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a bunch of work you did to respond to each and every one of my points, all of which support, by your own logic, that the material is absolutely appropriate for an article about either the South Carolina primaries, or the primary elections in general, or the 2000 election contest, for all the many, many, many, many, many (gee this is fun), many reasons you cite. But, none of it is appropriate for a BLP. That is my sole and singular point, and it is irrefutable based on any sensible, neutral reading of BLP. Unless you can show me a reliable source that says that George W Bush himself said it, it doesn't get into the BLP. Newguy34 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you went through the effort to post them so I figured I'd give you enough credit to respond. I apologize for my mistake, but don't worry about it I just restated all my prior positions again, and I'm used to doing that with you, so it wasn't much work. And I'm also sorry that you feel that by responding to all of the points required for listing on a BLP and doing so correctly while demonstrating that this section matched the criteria, you still feel that it does not belong. Your statement that it goes in other places is pointless as its already there and the criteria for those articles is less than the requirements for this article, however the inclusion still meets the requirements for this article. As for George W Bush directly saying something as a requirement for inclusion, that's not actually a BLP requirement so your sole and singular point is something that isn't supported in policy. Further a great number of items that are posted in this article don't actually use that non-existant stanard so why are you fixated on this one point? Now given that your entire argument has been refuted, repeatedly, I'll assume that you are going to rationally back down and move onto another point. Otherwise, please quote some ACTUAL WIKI POLICY that disputes its inclusion and I'll again demonstrate that you are wrong. Better yet, hit Archive 56 when you were arguing that this sort of information belongs in the wiki. I'll note that for all your 'everyone else is pushing pov' bluster, you seem to be pretty loose on the standards when its information thats against your POV. Its almost like Oh, and for the record, I am not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor, but I do my best to ensure that the articles reflect NPOV. That's all that's required. Newguy34 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Your best to ensure NPOV seems lacking in this case, maybe you should take your own advise and 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) Sheesh. RTRimmel (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, you are now starting to creep me out with all the quoting of me in a desperate search for some perceived inconsistencies (which there are none, of course). You perceive that you have somehow, destroyed my points, while I contend that your logic is faulty. I think we call this a content dispute, your trying to claim victory, aside. But, that's beside the point. The material you seek to have included is sensitive, controversial, borders on slanderous (i.e., making a potentially false statement based largely on a hearsay phone conversation that you were not even party to), sensational and titillating, and gossip-y. All of which makes the material inappropriate for inclusion in a BLP. Read the rules that are actually in Wiki rather than trying to attribute some admittedly non-existent rule to me. It was you who introduced the notion that asking for proof that Bush said the thing was some sort of BLP rule; that's not my claim and never has been. My claim is that proof that Bush said it is prima facie evidence that it is not rumor, gossip, etc., and therefore, possibly includable. So, despite your premature claim of victory, you have failed to convince me how the material in question is includable in Bush's BLP. So, simply tell me again why you think it should be included? Newguy34 (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry quoting you makes you look bad, here's the quote about you 'intorducing the notion' that its important that Bush said it being important. "but unless there is a reliable source that says Bush himself made the calls (or publicly made the claim)" its one of your first 'points' in the article. Your logic is manipulative and doesn't follow wiki policy. AGAIN AGAIN, there are recordings of the phone call so the potentially false claim is moot, further PRIMARY SOURCES indicate that it is a verifiable entity so you dispute of multiple verifible sources is laughable. Its not slanderous for reasons that have been discussed above. Nor is it controvertial, as noted above. I did read the rules, you conveniently posted them and I explained why this met the criteria and you shifted the topic so that the BLP inclusion rules proved that the information was good for including in non-BLP articles. It should be included because, again again again, Bush's victory in the south carolina primary is important and because that is important the reasons behind that win become important. You'll note that in the section, we mention South Carolina's primary as a particularly noteworthy porition of the primary campaign. Your opinion that they should not be included is not founded in wiki policy. RTRimmel (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent added] Simmer down, now; you seem to be getting a little flustered. Here are my points for ease of comprehension:

"Introducing a notion" is not the same as asserting a rule. If we are going to go any further in this discussion, I suggest you read the words I actually write, rather than reading into the words what you think I wrote.

I'll try to stop quoting you as it makes you look bad. I'm sorry that your positions have shifted and they keep records here demonstrating that you are " a very POV editor" who unabashedly shifts positions, curses did it again. RTRimmel (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Next, phone calls aren't reliable sources, are they?

But newspapers are and they assert that the phone call happened. I couldn't assert that the sky was blue and have it hold up in wikipedia. But a source says it, its verifible and reliable, and its good. But I forgot, the source disagrees with you and therefor must be subtraction edited away. RTRimmel (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The information is, in fact, controversial, lest there wouldn't be the need for us to have spent so much time discussing it.

Wow, because we are arging it must be controversial. That's a logical fallicy that one. I'm arguing that water is wet, you are arguing that it is not. Water is wet is now controvertial in NewGuy land. But aside from that, you are arguing that its controvertial, but on what grounds? It happened, so that's not controvertial. Multiple major newspapers have said that it happened, that's enough for Wiki. The sentence in question only says that it happened and does not say who did it or why, just that it happened in the SC primary. RTRimmel (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, "I did read the rules, you conveniently posted them and I explained why this met the criteria and you shifted the topic so that the BLP inclusion rules proved that the information was good for including in non-BLP articles." I’m not even sure what point you are trying to make here, but you seem to be supporting mine, namely that the information is OK for other articles, but not for a BLP. But, as I said, you seem to be flustered, so maybe I’ve got it wrong.

When your argument gets exposed as a house of cards, you accuse the other editor of not making sense and shift the point. The fact that I refuted all of your assertations when you attempted to quote BLP rules to support your argument, indicate that it does merit inclusion in the BLP. RTRimmel (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, "It should be included because, again again again, Bush's victory in the south carolina primary is important and because that is important the reasons behind that win become important." Umm, that’s synthesis and/or original research, and is not allowed anywhere in Wiki-Land.

Gotcha, so when you are arguing that context is important it should only go if the context support NewGuy's pov. I'd buy this if you hadn't actually said the exact opposite thing in archive 56, I'd quote it again but I'm getting tired of demonstrating that your perception of what is well and good depends entirly on what you are trying to push. RTRimmel (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, again, please tell me under what Wiki policies or practices, sensitive, controversial, slanderous, sensational and titillating, and gossip-y material is includable in a BLP? Newguy34 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The BLP policies state, quite clearly, that it does. You asserted that it did not, I demonstrated that it passed all relevant criteria. Again, if you read the talk page, its pretty obvious that you are belaboring the point for some reason, I will assume good faith and simply hope I cannot fathom your proper rational for it. RTRimmel (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Your logic is so twisted, I am not sure where to go with this. Discussing this with you has quickly become pointless, what with the temper tantrums, personal attacks, false claims of me shifting positions, poor grasp of logic, and over reliance on previous discussions that are loosely tangential to the current one. The information shouldn't be in the BLP, Wikilawyering aside. Other information negative to Bush has gotten into the BLP, and I have even helped to copyedit it. As such, I have clearly demonstrated that I value NPOV in the articles, while having an admitted POV (which you have not seen fit to admit). You may have won and worn me out with this string of bizarre discussions, but you have failed to convince me of your operative point. Have a good day. Newguy34 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are blameless, faultless and completely honorable in all of your discussions. Except for all of those personal attacks, evasive bouts of logic, and shifting of positions you you've done. And again, I'm sorry quoting you makes you look bad. I'll attempt to refrain from that in the future. RTRimmel (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, certainly you jest? I never claimed that (me thinks yet, again, another example of you attributing things to me that I have not said, or misreading my comments). Misquoting me or misapplying my quotes makes you look bad, that's all. But, this seems like a good place to leave it. We have both insulted the other, and yet are still mutually unable to see the other's point(s). On a serious and genuine note, have a good day. Newguy34 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

it's time for the two of you to either get a room, or stop. or better yet, try getting a third opinion. when two editors go at it like this for this long, you need to seek outside assistance. Anastrophe (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's exactly why I typed the last two sentences of my last edit. Newguy34 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion in Arab world

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)

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)

War Crimes thing in Canada

I removed the following from the visit to canada section. It borders on POV and WP:CRYSTAL. Might be useful later, so I didn't want it to get lost. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In light of this visit, on February 23, 2009, the international group known as the [[Lawyers Against the War]] (LAW) submitted a letter to the Canadian Government requesting that Bush should be barred from entering Canada in accordance with the [[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act]].<ref>http://www.straight.com/files/pdf/LAWBushVisitFeb2309.pdf</ref> <ref>http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-ga:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codese:35</ref> The request continued that should Bush enter Canada, that he is to be prosecuted for war crimes or human rights violations in accordance with the [[Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act]] or that the Attorney General must provide written consent to LAW for private prosecution.<ref>http://www.straight.com/files/pdf/LAWBushVisitFeb2309.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2007/doc_32020.html</ref>

Sounds kinda fringy to me. Does anyone really think the Canadian government is going to bar the former president of their closest trading partner because a small group of anti-war lawyers asked them to? How many relaible sources are there for this proposed edit? Newguy34 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If not fringy, then at minimal, irrelevant. I mean, doesn't this happen for every outgoing president, some group somewhere wants him prosecuted for whatever reason. Like Nixon :P Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

True, they tried it with Nixon for, well, being Nixon. Bush 41 was barred from Japanese food restaurants, and Clinton was barred from college sororities and cigar factories! Newguy34 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can fix this

Per point 3 above "unnamed critics", who accused Bush of getting favorable treatment from the National Guard : why not just dig up a citation from CBS or the DNC and change "Critics" to "political opponents"? They were the only ones trying to sell this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.222.64 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarian account of his presidency

Resolved by consensus

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

People are reverting each other as to whether to include W's promise that his book will deliver an "authoritarian account" of his Presidency~~, and unfortunately no one has yet offered any discussion on the Talk page~~. Personally, I think his words should go in, and I am writing to offer reasons why. First, it's reliably sourced. Second, if we're going to note that he's planning a book (thus giving it free publicity before he's even written it), balance and neutrality suggest we don't also need to clean up his quotes. Third, the quote succinctly reminds us of what his Presidency was really like. Those loyal to him may think it somehow unfair to quote him, and his publisher might edit everything to sound more polished, but in fact he might sell more copies of the book if he is allowed to tell his story in his own words. It would probably be much more entertaining than the usual self-serving memoirs of retired public officials. He has the unusual distinction of having been America's most and least popular President, and he remains controversial, but it seems only fair to let him tell his side of the story, and let the readers decide.

In the spirit of bi-partisanship, we can do the same with Joe Biden :)TVC 15 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion above under #Suggested Changes to Article. Bubba73 (talk), 13:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about bi-partisanship. What is notable is that he is writing a book, not that he made yet another gaffe. If the inclusion of the material is only to embarrass (as is the case here by using the term "authoritarian" when he clearly was trying to conjure the word "authoritative") it is verbotten in WP:BLPs. Newguy34 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the book is authoritarian or authoritative is irrelevant, and we do not write this article in an attempt to "remind us of what his Presidency was really like". The word choice has been latched onto and used as a final jab at Bush by his critics/bashers, and we will not play Gotcha in this article. The important and relevant issue is that he is writing a book. Beyond that, it's all bullshit. - auburnpilot's sock 14:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The worse part about all of this is the insane hatred and extremism shown toward this particular POTUS in public discourse, and the endless determination to paint this article in a negative light as in an agenda. I have never seen such an obsession over a POTUS before. The fact that he occasionally misspoke is irrelevant to anything. What is the point? Just because the MSM made a deal of it, does not make it noteworthy here! I don't want partisanship or bi-partisanship or omni-partisanship; it doesn't belong here in any way, shape or form EVER! Those of you with this agenda (and you know who you are) need to demonstrate some personal integrity and class. You are expected to demonstrate good faith in your efforts on Wikipedia. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba73 for pointing me to the section above. Somehow I had missed that, so my apologies to you and Newguy34. I agree with Bubba73's comment that the sources report what he actually said, and it would be presumptuous of us to replace that with what we think he meant. Do we have a source on what he meant, e.g. has he issued a correction or retraction? If we don't have a source for the paraphrase, then the quote should stand. This isn't about attacking him, even though one of democracy's better features is the leveling effect of being able to point out leaders' foibles. Even W joked about "mangling a syllable or two," so it is sad to see that some of his more extreme supporters (you know who you are) can't find the entertainment value in it. Meanwhile, until he actually writes the book, it's barely notable except for the attention the quote has received.TVC 15 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really about entertainment, per se, so we need to stay encyclopedic. Also, the right to poke fun at our leaders is an American concept, and not shared by all the constituents of Wikipedia, so all the more reason to leave this out. Either it's notable that he is writing a book, or it's not, and that alone should govern whether this passge (without the gaffe) is included. The gaffe is commonplace and looks like it is being included only to disparage and poke fun at Bush (as you admit), which is not allowed under Wikipedia's BLP rules. Newguy34 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)::The question is not whether we like or dislike the man. This should not turn into a reverting match between Bush lovers who want to cover up his "Bushisms," and those who only want to ridicule. The question is whether the quote is reliably sourced and encyclopedic. It is reliably sourced, to an Associated Press story. This remains true however many times people remove the link to the AP story with the claim that "the link will rot." It is not required that a convenience link be forever available online to include such a reliable source as the Associated Press coverage of a major speech as a reference. The press coverage of the "authoritarian" gaffe included Harpers online, which was incorrectly dismissed as a "blog." More and more newspapers are shifting to online-only, and not all online magazine material which is authored by magazine staff can be so easily removed. Additional mainstream media coverage of the "authoritarian" quote includes MSNBC TV, the Rachel Maddow Show, March 18, 2009 [1]. It was also discussed on MSNBC on the Keith Olberman show [2]. The speech is encyclopedic in that it was his first post-presidential speech. The gaffe was covered internationally, in The Australian for March 19, "I'm not criticising now, Bush pledges," [3]. BLP is not a basis for censoring the quote, since it accurately describes the statement of a well known public person, and has had considerable media coverage. Edison (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article in The Australian devotes nearly all of its words to the substance of the president's talk (i.e., he wants to see Obama succeed, puts patriotism above politics, etc.). The one sentence where they quote the former president, they even correct his Bushism, "I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian (sic) voice saying exactly what happened." What is news here is that he is writing a book and refusing to criticise his successor. The gaffe is a fun little bit (as admitted by Rachel Maddow) being used by some to pile on after he is out of office. It doesn't belong in the BLP regardless of the discussion over rotted links. I suggest that the editors who feel strongly about it take it to Bushisms. Newguy34 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It definitely should have a place in the Bushism article, regardless of whether the ultimate consensus is to include it here. It seems to boil down to whether it is encyclopedic. The speech and commentary on the latest Bushism and the promised book seem like a major part of press coverage of his post-Presidential period, so far. It seems reliably sourced and it does not appear to be a WP:BLP violation to accurately report what he said in a speech. Edison (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To quote WP:BLP "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. " and "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. " Given the refrence indicates that the quote is in error and a the quote is about a book that has not yet been published which does not appear to be about Bush's Authoritarian control over the government, I don't see how it complies with BLP policy. RTRimmel (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What ref has said the quote was "in error?" To the contrary, AP is the source for the quote and I have not seen a retraction. Perhaps you meant Bush was "in error." We are not here to filter out anything the subject of an article might wish he had not said in a major address. As for BLP, we will not be the "primary vehicle" since it has been reported in multiple press sources, nor is it "sensationalistic." Please read the BLP policy again, and take a look at how it has been applied in articles. You could also bring your concern up on the BLP noticeboard to see if there is any consensus that reporting a politician's gaffe or confusion about what words mean is a BLP violation. Edison (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What I think RTRimmel is alluding to, is the reference in The Austrlian (that you pointed us to) that says "...so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian (sic) voice saying exactly what happened." "Sic" being the newspapers' commonly used indicator that there is some sort of grammatical or spelling error in the quote. What is notable is that he is writing a book, not that he made yet another gaffe. If the inclusion of the material is only to embarrass (as is the case here by using the term "authoritarian" when he clearly was trying to conjure the word "authoritative") it is verbotten in WP:BLPs. RTRimmel and I have had many (sometimes entertaining) bouts on Wikipedia over such issues, so if he agrees is doesn't belong, we have reached consensus on this matter, I can assure you. What is the reason you seek to have this statement included? Newguy34 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I started this section thinking "authoritarian" should go in this article, I am persuaded by Newguy34's argument that it belongs in the linked article on Bushisms instead. So, I have added it there. BTW, that article already links to Freudian slip, and I linked to a source that ran the quote without a "(sic)." Enjoy :)TVC 15 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Controversies and criticism" section

A user has put forward a proposal on the talk page of Presidency of George W. Bush, to remove a "Controversies and criticism" section from said article, as per precedent established at Barack Obama, and per WP:CRIT. I thought to inform editors here in case they might be interested to participate. In my personal opinion, I believe the section should be removed, for the same reasons expressed by the person who raised the idea.

The discussion can be found here: Talk:Presidency of George W. Bush#Criticisms/Controversies section

Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance to anyone who gets involved. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas Air National Guard Favoritism

Not neutral. This is a largely speculative partisan attack. While it's possible Bush received preferential treatment, there is no actual evidence (i.e. anything indicating any communication on Bush's behalf) to prove this happened, and it doesn't really make sense given that Bush later volunteered for combat duty. Bush's test scores low but acceptable, and the most likely explanation is that TANG just wasn't hard for pilots to get into (possibly because they were flying those F-102 deathtraps).

Would a speculative attack from partisan critics make it onto Barack Obama's page? TallDave7 (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(moved from --Zeamays (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC) talk page)

I have reverted most of three of your edits to George W. Bush regarding his military service. I see two issues:

1) the material you sought to include places undue weight on controversies surrounding a six-year period that comprises 1/10 of his life. So for a BLP, what is in there already re: the ANG is probably enough. If you feel differently, I encourage you to build consensus on the article's talk page first.

2) The material, while sourced, is contentious and controversial, and so more than a single source is needed here.

Thanks, and happy editing. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to re-insert your deletion of my properly referenced additions, which represent well-documented information in a new book. Just because the source is contentious, does not mark it for deletion. I chose some of the most well-documented and least contentious claims in the new book for my additions. The reason they are important is that they make the point that Bush was unqualified, and received special attention, a serious charge that others have made without all the heavy documentation provided by Mr. Baker's book. --Zeamays (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not our place to be "sensational" or to "make the point". You'll need more than a single source for this type of material; one book is not enough. The additions, as they are, are inappropriate for a BLP, and represent a POV ~~(which you admit yourself)~~ when NPOV is what is called for. Please cease adding POV material to any BLP or other type of article. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Russ Baker material has a point of view, but that does not make my addition POV. I suggest you read the description of POV. Please do not misquote me, claiming I allowed my edit was POV. This misquote is not gentlemanly behaviour. The additions are factual or report correctly charges that were made in the source material. All are documented in the source material. You should desist from this improper behavior. --Zeamays (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to explain my point again. You claim that your proposed additions are needed to "make the point that Bush was unqualified..." Again, it is not our place to be "sensational" or to "make the point". Also, per BLP rules, material that is controversial requires more than a single source (i.e., one book is not enough). The additions represent a single author's POV when NPOV is what is called for in a BLP. Sourcing or not, the information in contentious, and you really need to discuss these types of edits on the talk page, and attempt to gain consensus, before re-inserting them. One other editor has already reverted your edits citing essentially the same basis as me, so please heed our warnings and seek discussion before insisting on these edits. Otherwise, I'm afraid, we have little option but to open an entry on the BLP noticeboard or AN/I. Let's decrease the rhetoric and work through this, shall we? QueenofBattle (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't check QoB's talk page while having this conversation please see my comment here [4] at User talk:QueenofBattle's talk page. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why are you discussing edits for the George W Bush article on talk pages rather than on the George W Bush talk page? RTRimmel (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion, as requested. --Zeamays (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Queen is incorrect on [his] ~~her~~ assessment of BLP policy. [[5]] allows for a single source, but the source must be, in essence, above refute such as a marriage license. That said, multiple sources is a good rule of thumb because anything juicy is going to be everywhere if it can be verified. In this case, the source in question may we be accurate but given the white glove approach that BLP's use, its not proper here in this form because only one author has found out this information and mainstream press has yet to pick up on it. If you can find additional citations that support the argument or a stronger source then I can see it. I did find the part about Bush test results to be interesting and that may be meritous of inclusion with additional sources. Remember, you can let the facts speak for themselves. The picture they paint is plain enough. RTRimmel (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen needs to stop misquoting me, as in "You claim that your proposed additions are needed to "make the point that Bush was unqualified..." Again, it is not our place to be "sensational" or to "make the point"."

This misquote is improper. What I wrote in my edit was that the critics (Russ Baker) made those claims. That is verifiable and factual. Baker definitely is a critic. Also, I never used the word "sensational" in any case. Baker has written a heavily documented book, and it is notable, although I do agree it is contentious, meaning that it makes charges with which others may not agree. Queen needs to be more careful and critical in understanding what is written by an editor, before deleting the edits of others. I don't have much respect for with Wikipedia editors who just delete, rather than the more difficult task of adding and editing content. --Zeamays (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your quote that I accurately quoted was "make the point that Bush was unqualified...", as can be seen here and here. The quote marks around the word sensational refer to me quoting Wikipedia's policies on writing BLPs. Now that we have cleared that up, RTRimmel is correct with his/~~her~~ reading of Wikipedia, but my point is still equally valid, semantics aside. Namely, the material you seek to have included is, in its present form and with its single source, not appropriate for inclusion. Myself, and now three other editors have cautioned you about that fact, advice you might consider the wisdom of heeding. Also, you should comment on the articles themselves, never on other editors as doing so is against Wikiquette and Wiki's core principle of civility. QueenofBattle (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the references you cite do not back up your point. You misquoted me. --Zeamays (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the diffs I provided are to my talk page and your talk page where you clearly state "I am going to re-insert your deletion of my properly referenced additions, which represent well-documented information in a new book. Just because the source is contentious, does not mark it for deletion. I chose some of the most well-documented and least contentious claims in the new book for my additions. The reason they are important is that they make the point that Bush was unqualified, [emphasis added] and received special attention, a serious charge that others have made without all the heavy documentation provided by Mr. Baker's book. --Zeamays (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)"

QueenofBattle (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with pointing out that Bush was qualified/unqualified for anything. You are allowed, and recommended, to do just that. The problem is that your source in general isn't strong enough for a BLP. As soon as any major news site/network/paper picks it up, then I'll get right on the pulpit with you demanding its inclusion, however as of right now, the book hasn't and its positions are not above reproach. When/if it is, then you've got something. Until then you have to wait. And Queen, its his. :P RTRimmel (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you go out and get a copy of Mr. Baker's book. I do agree that Baker has some problems with over-interpretation of evidence, some of it egregious, but the facts are well-documented, and he has marshaled a vast number of them. My edits were based on the facts, not some of his exaggerated conclusions. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. --Zeamays (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Queen and RTRimmel on this one. Multiple sources are needed for information like this. Even if sources were found, we would have to hammer what is and is not appropriate for a BLP, WP:NPOV concerns, WP:WEIGHT concerns, etc. etc. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be perfectly acceptible if someone would start that process of trying to editorially improve my additions, but what I have experienced is just deletion, a sure sign that those editors just want these facts buried, not considered, debated and improved through good editing. --Zeamays (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But, Zeamays, what you need to grasp to make your editing more enjoyable is that many editors are Exclusionists or Deletionists, which is a perfectly valid form of editing on Wikipedia. You may not appreciate the subtleties of the Exclusionists' work, but that doesn't make them wrong. You want us to let you include material that is clearly POV (in the view of at least five editors, at current count), and then have us edit it to make it NPOV. I am not sure how productive that is. Why not edit it once to include adequately sourced NPOV material? Once you can find enough sourcing to back up your (or Mr. Baker's) material, I am confident there are several editors who will flock to help you. But, in the interim, there is no reason to name call or suggest that others don't know what they are doing. Civility is the core principle we all adhere to while editing here; and it is not-negotiable. QueenofBattle (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance through a series (4) of critical reviews of the source in question do little to mitigate my concerns. Again, no one else is using it but when they do its all good. I'm not one to jump up and down signing the virtues of President Bush but the source isn't strong enough for a BLP. You peeling through a book to find what facts you feel are important is OR and not allowed. Mr. Baker has done an el Rushbo and only found facts and sources that support his argument with specific attention spent to avoid being NPOV. I certainly have found some pretty damming information about Bush in the past that has little place here, but unfortunately that's the rules of the game and we have to move on. When any major news organization picks this up, we can run with it and I'll be the first to help you get it in here, but that's not what we have right now and simply we wait until it moves on. RTRimmel (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

" the source isn't strong enough for a BLP.... Mr. Baker has done an el Rushbo..." So you read some reviews, but not the source, and then give an opinion? I suggest you read it yourself before you issue such opinions.
"You peeling through..." I also suggest to you that you refrain from characterizing other editors, which are not appropriate. How can it be original research to cite the results of others? We all make judgments when we add to Wikipedia articles. Of course that needn't apply to editors who only make deletions. --Zeamays (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is my opinion of the source means little. If I read 4 critical reviews of the piece from mainstream/credible sources and all of them state it is a POV piece, then it doesn't really matter if I think that the book is the greatest piece of non-fiction in the history of mankind, it doesn't get onto a BLP per the BLP rules. RTRimmel (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen wrote: "many editors are Exclusionists or Deletionists, which is a perfectly valid form of editing on Wikipedia. You may not appreciate the subtleties of the Exclusionists' work, but that doesn't make them wrong." I'm sorry, but I fail to see any subtlety in deletion of text. Of course Wikipedia allows this, but I differ with you on the quality that results. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I only encounter this kind of hostility and immediate deletion on politically-related articles. This is prime-facie evidence that the reasons for the deletion are political in nature.

I give up, because it is not worth this wiki-lawyering discussion with you. There is no prime [sic] facie evidence of any political motivations one can reasonably draw from the deletions. Hell, RTRimmel is an admitted liberal, who I have disagreed with on many occasions before. But, on this point, he is right on the money. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the quote, "You want us to let you include material that is clearly POV (in the view of at least five editors, at current count)...." A vote does not make it POV. Please explain how a neutral statement, like what I wrote about his lacking OCS training or his numerical score on a test is POV? They're just facts. Inconvenient facts, but just facts that Mr. Baker cited from a Texas newspaper article. I guess I could cite the article myself, but I don't have a copy and I don't cite sources I haven't read. I have read Mr. Baker, and his word is good enough for me. I didn't start the name calling. As for uncivil, I was misquoted by you several times. It was Mr. Baker who was the critic who called Mr. W. Bush unqualified, and I just cited him as an example of critics who said he received special attention and said he was unqualified. That should have been clear, or you should have edited my edition to clarify it. --Zeamays (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What "vote" are you referring to? I never said anything about a "vote". Me thinks you are now mis-quoting. We are talking about the viewpoint of five different editors related to whether the material you seek to include, in its present form and with its singular source, is POV. That's called consensus, and is highly desirable around these parts. You are bordering on refusing to get the point. Simmer down with the temper tantrum; I never never mis-quoted you, a fact that is plain for anyone to see. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RTRimmel wrote: "If I read 4 critical reviews of the piece from mainstream/credible sources and all of them state it is a POV piece, then it doesn't really matter if I think that the book is the greatest piece of non-fiction in the history of mankind, it doesn't get onto a BLP per the BLP rules." I still think you ought to read something yourself before you set yourself up as a critic of it. One of those pieces, no doubt, was the one from the LA Times, by Tim Rutten, January 7, 2009, but it didn't discuss the Texas Air Guard issue at all. Please if you're going to cite four critical reviews, you might mention which one that deals with the point we're discussing. Rutten also doesn't say anything negative about Baker's documentation, just the wild accusations Baker concludes. But we're not discussing wild accusations, just basic facts about G.W. Bush's Air Guard service that Baker documnents. --Zeamays (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried again on the article itself. The deleters should note prior to deleting that nearly all the facts that I cited in my previous edits (and all of them in this edit) are documented in the previously-cited Lois Romano article, as well as by Russ Baker. I have also correctly identified Russ Baker as one of the critics (which a previous editor asked to be identified). --Zeamays (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bush's education

His educational record is interesting given that he attended high profile institutions, yet had grades/sat scores well below average. Why does not the article mention what GPA he finished his bachelor with? That he graduated without honors, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.36 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because these matters are clearly not notable. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to give a reason for why it is not notable. It is simply astounding that he entered Yale with a 200 point SAT score below average, graduated with 2.35 GPA: http://www.monkeydyne.com/bushresume/early.html . This is certainly a more objective fact than, as is now stated in the article, Bush classified himself as a mediocre student -- this latter statement can be interpreted as 'Bush was a straight A student but modest'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.36 (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen is right -- those things are not notable. I don't see GPA scores on other presidential articles. What's more, monkeydyne.com is surely not a reliable reference. --Happyme22 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We write (and edit) articles to a neutral point of view, so while it may be "astounding" to some, a neutral presentation requires that the material be presented as "just the facts, ma'am" and void of any interpretations. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that he had 2.35 GPA in college. The question was whether this was a notable fact or not, not whether it was neutral fact (which btw it is). That George said that he considered himself an average student is certainly less of an objective opinion than his actual below average, statistically documented performance. It is said that lobbyists still dominate this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.36 (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well like I said, I don't see any GPA scores on other presidential articles. No, of course this page is not "run" by lobbyists -- that's an insane theory. Happyme22 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a 2.0 GPA is considered "average" (it's a C), Bush's was a 2.35, which is above that average, so I think his assertion that he was "an above average student" is basically factual. That GPA earned him a degree under the university's standards, which is the sole notable part of all of this. A notable fact that is already reflected in the BLP, by the way. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

George never said "I was an above average student" -- he said "I was an average student". Why not just include that he had a 2.35 GPA or a C average in the article? To just quote him on his words is misleading. If he says he was an average student it could mean, for example, a) he had B/A average (we all have different perceptions of what average means), b) he considered himself an average student but was in fact above average. His GPA is an objective fact and inclusion of such a fact would clarify the article. For most presidential candidates how well they did in school is reported on the wikipedia-articles. Look at Bill Clinton's article, for example. Yes, this is a notable fact what GPA he indeed had in college. Take for example the discussion about who was scholastically superior, Kerry or Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.218.213 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't include it because it is not notable, which has now been suggested to you by at least three editors. You are quickly failing to get the point. It matters not whom was perceived to be scholastically superior in 2004, as that election has already been decided. The former president graduated from Yale, and is the only president to earn an MBA, both facts that are already in the article. No further details needed, but thank you for the suggestion. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CIA interrogation tactics

Shouldn't their be more details, about the harsh interrogation tactics used by the CIA that were approved by the Bush administration in this article. I feel that the topic of these methods is rarely mentioned in this article. Personally, I believe that since people know that the Bush administration authorized this, now that the Obama administration had revealed memos about this topic, it is something that should be included in this article.

Here are some more links, by the way, which include more information on this subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_go_pr_wh/torture_memos_tactics http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090417/pl_mcclatchy/3214142 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/secret-interrogation-memos-to-be-released/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-cia_17apr17,0,5313134.story http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_12160615 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.251.178 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In a word, we need to be very careful about how we present a very controversial issue such as this one. The fact that you referred to the tactics as "harsh" emphasizes the politically-charged nature of this discussion. Any mention would have to be very neutral in its presentation, largely sterile, and adequately sourced. I see the User:RTRimmel has put forth some language, which with a little wordsmithing from me for grammar, should do the trick. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I reworded what RTRimmel put forth, deleting the definition per WP:SS, WP:WEIGHT, and to save space. Waterboarding should not be overtly labeled as "torture" because not all sources agree and this is a very, very contentious issue, however the fact that some people consider it torture should definitely be included. Happyme22 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, and think the changes are even better. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen, lets start... I copied the definiton from the waterboarding article figuring that it was be the most NPOV definition we were likly to get. The definition of waterboarding does not need to be removed per WP:SS or WP:Weight and we have room. Waterboarding is considered torture by the overwhelming majority. Per WP:Weight If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; This is the majority viewpoint on a scale that it uncommon to see. The viewpoint that it is not torture is WP:Fringe as it lacks any meaningful 3rd party adherents. Due to WP:Fringe the people outside the administration (3rd parties) that consider it not to be torture can be mentioned if they are credible. Then throw them over to the waterboarding page as they are desperate for sources that say waterboarding is not torture. And per WP:WEight we don't need to do much aside from state that the Bush administration states its not torture... which we already do with the whole Bush saying the US doesn't torture opener to the section. RTRimmel (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And for further info, the lead of enhanced interrogation techniques includes "Despite the Orwellian[6] euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques"[7] the International Committee of the Red Cross,[8] the United Nations,[9] the Commissioner for Human Rights,[10] the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee,[1] Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH),[11]Amnesty International,[12] the National Lawyers Guild, [13], the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [14], Dame Stella Rimington[15], Elizabeth de la Vega,[16] and many other experts classify them to be torture,[17] and also consider the techniques ineffective.[2][18][19][20][21][22] For its use on Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, the government of Canada added the United States to a list of countries that employ interrogation methods that amount to torture.[23]"

The lead of waterboarding states "Waterboarding is a form of torture[1][2] that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[3] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Contrary to what you are implying, torture is not the universal definition or synonym of waterboarding, and there are credible sources that do not label waterboarding as torture. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources to be used as citations in other articles. The bottom line is that we should stick with the NPOV view, showing both sides arguments, not overtly taking one side (that waterboarding is 100%, without a doubt torture). I will elaborate more when I can (probably later tonight or tomorrow). Happyme22 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

<undent> If you can find reliable 3rd party sources please throw them over to the waterboarding page as well. They have been looking for sources saying that its not torture for a long time now. Your viewpoint that it is not torture is WP:Fringe. Wikipedia articles are not in and over themselves WP:RS but they are based on reliable sources and on any hot button issue such as this one would assume that a stable header in a wikipedia article concerning a topic would be an indicator that more research has been conducted on this term over there than the fly by we are doing over here. And we can mine other Wikipedia articles for cites, so instead of reinventing the wheel that is what we should do. Looking at WP:Weight we have

   * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
   * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
   * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The viewpoint that it is torture is of the first category, we have easily pull tens of thousands of cites for this from highly reliable sources including the US legal code, US Military experts (John McCain stated it was torture for example), US Medical experts etc. It gets worse if we move to the world at large which even more so views it as torture. The viewpoint that it isn't is in the third because the adherents are largely members of Bush's administration and therefor not 3rd party as they have a stake in whether or not they have done something illegal. If you can push it to the lofty stages of significant minority, I'd love to see the sources. So what we should have is somethign more akin to "Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by (list huge list of sources here) to be a form of torture, though (Inserts someone credible here) say that it is not torture. RTRimmel (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the operative point is not that there are many who now consider it torture (although not all), but rather that under the Military Commissions Act, the president gets to decide what consitutes torture for enemy combatants and terrorists. So, I have copyedited a bit to shorten up the passage while leaving the views of others in the article. I also copyedited for encyclopedic tone and pronoun/verb agreement. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this opinion is that it was universally considered torture until 2004 when information that we were waterboarding got out. Prior to this, waterboarding was torture and the US prosecuted quite a number of people for performing this torture on others either foreign or domestic. Members of foreign soldiers that waterboarded US soldiers were prosecuted. US soldiers that waterboarded other were prosecuted. Plus, in a more worldwide view it has ALWAYS been considered torture. Bush essentially asserted a legal opinion that it wasn't torture under a certain set of provisos, and that logic has always been seen as threadbare to our allies. Canada, and others, document the US as a country that tortures for example. Pointing out that a minority of experts do not believe its torture is fine, but the flat earth crowd isn't giving space in the Earth article for a reason as their viewpoint (much like the viewpoint that waterboarding is not torture) is held by a such a limited but vocal minority as to be WP:fringe. And that this was potentially legal under an interpretation of the Military Commissions Act may very well be correct, but the section doesn't reflect that very well and the sources we have can be interpreted under that light but don't flat out say this is correct. "Under the Military Commissions Act Bush believed he had the right to determine what constituted torture, however prior to that waterboarding had been always been considered torture by both the US, its allies and the world at large." RTRimmel (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Try these; each of these refers to waterboarding being condemned as torture, but does not take a side and overtly refer to the act as being torturous:

AP - "CIA interrogation techniques that included methods criticized as torture."

"The memos detailed the use of waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning that Attorney General Eric Holder has denounced as torture - as well as sleep deprivation, isolation and physical violence." And "According to the declassified memos, waterboarding was used on alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003. Suspected al-Qaida logistics chief Abu Zubaydah was subjected to the treatment 83 times in August 2002."

"sh.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/04/200941619836194757.html Al Jazeera - "The harsh interrogation methods have been criticised by rights groups as torture"

The memos document in detail techniques lawyers believed would not break laws against torture."

AFP - "releasing secret memos on Bush-era questioning of terror suspects derided by critics as torture."

"The president reassured the embattled spies at their Virginia headquarters amid a heated controversy over his release of secret memos detailing Bush-era interrogations of terror suspects denounced as torture by critics."

What I'm really not comfortable about here is taking a side in a very heated debate, thus violating WP:NPOV. Just because one view may not be as strong as another does not make it a fringe theory; fringe theories are wacky ideas like "the earth is flat." "Waterboarding does not constitute torture" is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint that deserves just as much respect as the other viewpoint, and I will not allow this article to overtly take a side and call it torture. Hell, the new Director of National Intelligence won't even call it torture -- from Reuters.

So there needs to be balance. We should refer to it as an enhanced interrogation technique, then say that many consider it a form of torture. Something like this:

While Bush stated that the United States does not torture, he authorized the CIA to use waterboarding, an enhanced interrogation technique, argued by many authorities to be a form of torture.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter what other Wikipedia articles say, because we don't write based off of them per WP:RS. We don't cite them either. We cite outside, reliable, third party sources, and, as I demonstrated above, there are plenty (especially in recent days) that present both sides. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is that the other wikipedia articles on the relevant subjects are POV and not well researched? Have you taken your issues to those articles to discuss the problems with their POV issues? Also, "However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources" and that's all we are doing, taking their well researched and stable explinations for what a topic is (as well as their cites) and putting it here. Again, I'll mention that the definition of waterboarding on thewaterboarding page has been there for a year, that speaks worlds to its concensus and stability. And you may want to read the Reuters article, it explains why the CIA chief didn't say anything quite clearly. "The caution reflected a public debate over whether to prosecute CIA employees who used the simulated drowning technique." This is a violation of WP:RS as he's not a third party in this instance, he has a direct stake in the outcome. But why am I lecturing you on policy, you know WP:RS quite well. Most of your cites are the current stash of memos and reek of WP:Recentism further the current politically charged debate you speak of it whether or not to charge former CIA interrogators for torture, and that Obama preemptivly pardoned them for doing their jobs does not say that waterboarding is torture or not though, truthfully, why would he bother unless there was a reason... You may also want to read this [[6]] but I'll warn you its pretty grim. We should probably mention the memos in the article as well... but that's a whole different discussion.

We need to balance with a vision that in some way reflects reality. The overwhelming majority of experts say its torture so WP:Weight comes into play and we attempt for balance.

While Bush stated that the United States does not torture, he authorized the CIA to use waterboarding, which is commonly considered to be a form of torture, as an enhanced interrogation technique.

This puts the majority view in front; because while you may hold some illusions that there is a solid core of people who do not view waterboarding as torture, you've yet to name a single reliable third party source that agrees with you. That is the very definition of WP:Fringe. RTRimmel (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Though your comments above are dripping with sarcasm, I'm fine with the compromise because I don't want to push the issue further. You should know that although we disagree on a number of issues, I think you are a fine editor, RTRimmel. Happyme22 (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And I usually respect your judgement on articles, heavens knowns you've reigned me in several times but on this issue I don't feel you have your head in the right spot. The process we would call Waterboarding was 'invented' in the 1400's during the Spanish inquisition as a form of torture, no joke. The Spainiards didn't say, this might be torture, or might not be torture... they developed it as torture for the express purpose of torturing. The Inquisition believed that it was alright that they tortured and acknowledged waterboarding was an effective torture. The entire 600 year history of waterboarding as we would currently define the term classified waterboarding as torture. The English started a war over the Dutch torturing their citizens by waterboarding them, and the Dutch acknowledge that they were waterboarding them as a form of torture. The list goes on and on and the US procecuted people for waterboarding in the past for torture. Waterboarding has been torture for its entire existance until 2004 when suddenly there is some massive dispute over it in that its suddenly not torture... except for the only people who seem to believe that are members of the Bush administration and certain right wing pundits in the US. So we have 600 years of waterboarding being universally classified as torture, 200 years of the US legal precidents classifying waterboarding as torture, versus 4 years that under certain legal opinion thought that it MIGHT NOT be torture under CERTAIN circumstances when used on SOME people. NPOV does not require we give the second opinion equal weight. RTRimmel (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-Working this Paragraph

When reading through this article I have found this paragraph:

"Bush successfully ran for re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004, garnering 50.7 percent of the popular vote to his opponent's 48.3 percent. After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism from some sources.[5][6][7] In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession,[8] and his administration took more direct control of the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages. Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[9] his popularity declined sharply in his second term.[10][11][12][13][14]"

To actually have a one-sided view of his 2nd term summary. I would suggest re-writing this since the paragraph is nothing more than critism after the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Which parts are factually inaccurate and what would you add? Saying, its bad I'd rewrite it is less effective than proposing what it should be rewritten into. RTRimmel (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already a page for criticisms. While factually correct, it appears more of a partisan view focusing only on the negative. Nothing about the positive things George Bush did during his second terms such as he signed a bill in 2006 that gave non-spousal couples the same federal pension standards as married couples, establishing the largest marine reserve, and the highly successful "surge" in the war in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the page for criticisms got removed last time I checked. That said, the events in question were sourced and a great number of experts seem to think them important so I'm inclined to keep them. However, you have brought up some interesting points and at bare minimum the surge should be mentioned in the lead. Put forth your suggestion as to how it should be done. RTRimmel (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets start easy:

"Bush successfully ran for re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004, garnering 50.7 percent of the popular vote to his opponent's 48.3 percent. After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism from some sources.[5][6][7] In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In 2006, Bush authorized a troop surge to stabilize the faltering nation of Iraq. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession,[8] and his administration took more direct control of the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages. Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[9] his popularity declined sharply in his second term.[10][11][12][13][14]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)