Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 25 March 2009

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

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

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

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

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about George W. Bush. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about George W. Bush at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Maintained

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stephen Foley (2009-02-03). "Is Misplaced Pages cracking up?". Irish Independent.

George W. Bush official website

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

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

Suggested Changes to Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Should Katrina even be in it? There is still debate as to whether the failure was on the local and state level more than the federal level, since Louisiana did not request aid from FEMA until later and the feds did a lot when they were called in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

MOS supports this based on the economics section, where it is cited. If that section doesn't meet your criteria, we should look into expanding the economics section in more detail about Bush's deregulation and economic policies prior to the crash. The lead is designed to be short, as such we can't put as much information into it as we would like, however we should try to ensure that it is a good encapsualtion of what is in the article. We could go "the bush administration was forced to nationalize many financial institutions" in place of more direct control, more detail is always better but going into a good explination of a very very complicated issue is difficult, but at the same time it is important enough that it must be mentioned in the lead. RTRimmel (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Change: Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term, his popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.

To: For much of his first term, Bush was regarded as a popular president, obtaining at one point the highest approval rating of any US president . His popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.

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

We could, HappyMe seems to have decided that this was the best compromise, and to his credit this sentence has been ugly in the past. If we are going to include near record low, we should go with near record high as well as both sides can find polls that support Bush as the most and least popular president. For example, Gallup was used as our standard, however it was discovered that Gallup was using known flawed methodology when polling for Bush so they can't be described as artifially better than any other polster. Bush was under 50% just after the election for his second term and declined sharply after that so your example, and the existant sentence, is lacking as well. Plus if we aren't going to include the reasons for his lows, we can't release the reason for his highs which makes it all the more tricky. So "For much of his first term, Bush was regarded as a popular president achieving at one point a near record high. His ratings declined steadily throughout his first term, with Bush at near record unpopularity throughout his second term." Which I don't like but is probably more accurate. Bush's popularity was artifically high after 9/11 and steadily declined after that, but was still reasonable until after the election at which point it was just waiting ot see how low it was going to go. The question is, because 911 is so signifigant do we mention it as that is what increased his popularity, but then if we go that direction do we need to mention the financial crisis, the surge, the iraq war, katrina etc that decreased his popularity? RTRimmel (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As for point three (the possible change), I'd just as soon take it out, unless the author or someone else can provide a source that addresses the issue raised: if it is a "more direct control", a basis needs to be established--more direct from what--and that basis needs to be cited. If that can't happen, it should be removed. I feel like I'm repeating myself because apparently some believe "there is little left to discuss" without attempting to address my concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.106.8 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On a completely different subject, here's just a little snafu that, as a Bush critic, I found amusing, but nevertheless needs changing: in the "Post Presidency" section, it discusses his plans to write "an authoritarian account of his presidency." Authoritative is the correct word choice.76.176.159.140 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bush's exact word was "authoritarian". Bubba73 (talk), 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

But the source cited is a blog, which is not going to make it as a reliable source. Newguy34 (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to Harper's Magazine, who said that they got it from the Associated Press. The book isn't out yet, so how can we assume that it was a gaffe? We have to trust Bush. Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the source to the Associated Press article, from the AP website. Also included the material added byNewguy34 about the reader putting himself in the president's place in making decisions about protecting the United States. I trust the AP to quote what Bush said. Edison (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We really should not have reliable sources that say they got the information from another reliable source. And, in any case, 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) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press is the original source. Bubba73 (talk), 14:06, 23 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 Misplaced Pages rules

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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." 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is not about "providing insight" into one's character, as doing so is obviously subjective. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not psychology. Newguy34 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

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

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

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)

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; 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, 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. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 60, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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. Misplaced Pages 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). 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 60 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)

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 60, 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 ] (LAW) submitted a letter to the Canadian Government requesting that Bush should be barred from entering Canada in accordance with the ].<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 ] 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

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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 . It was also discussed on MSNBC on the Keith Olberman show . 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," . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Bush negatives

You need to put more in on how George W. Bush did bad things and was very hated by the U.S. --Bobert300 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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