Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 12 August 2007

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Public image of George W. Bush/Archive 1. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Public image of George W. Bush/Archive 1 at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Speedy Keep (closed for inappropriate discussion), November 26, 2006, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), August 21, 2006, see discussion.

Cleanup?

Am I the only one who finds this article very hard to read? It could do with a bit of rewriting, or perhaps a table to make the numbers in polls clearer. DiegoTehMexican 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, theres little comments here and there that justify George without any source (or just 1 source thats usually a partisan site called "fuck islamos" or whatever). This is worst than a Star Wars page as it stands.

NPOV

I find it hard to believe that there exists no perception of anyone in the world that contains anything positive about Bush. This really needs to have some positive perceptions. --jbamb

• As much as I dislike Bush and his administration, I must admit that the second part of this article, is a list of items squarely against him. I agree with what is written in them, but surely there are other issues such as Bush stance on abortion, that are perceived positively by a sizeable chunk of people that voted for him. manu3d 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that history will probably be a bit more favorable to Bush, but it seems to me that he's going from one problem to the next in his second term. There has been little to no positive news at all lately, and many people in his own party are trying to distance themselves from the President. DiegoTehMexican 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • No it won't. Here's my prediction: A tax-and-spend Republican who has eroded civil liberties while increasing the size of government, he'll be disavowed by left, liberal and conservative historians alike. George Kaplan 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I agree. Bush will NOT be looked on favourably by future generations. And of course a lot of this is squarely against him, look at the title of the article!A gx7 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite like this article. Good job.

BMIKESCI 06:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

When similar pages related to Bill Clinton and Al Gore are titled "...Controversies" and this page is "Criticisms" how can anyone claim NPOV? Change the page title to "George W. Bush Controversies" and you start to have parity. 159.247.2.8 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Uniter/Divider

"I'm a uniter, not a divider", was Bush's slogan in the 2000 election. My personal view, however, is that Bush has been a very successful divider, dividing the nation over a number of important issues; perhaps more so than any previous president! Does anyone have any opinion or fact that supports or refutes my view? -PJ

• Which is one position, his approval is near 50%, is there nothing positive that can be said and how does that reconcile with the level of approval? -- Jbamb 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• • His approval doesn't seem to be anywhere near 50%, so I have no idea what you're talking about. (unsigned)

At various times his ratings have been far above 50%, especially after 9/11. During those times his public perception was very positive, someone could certainly dig up the reasons for that, since I don't remember what thery were.12.17.189.77 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the most relevant POV criticism is that although Bush's numbers have softened in 2005 and 2006, it has had nothing to with the liberal issues listed herein (NSA, Plame leak, secret prisons). The people who cared about that stuff voted for Kerry. Bush lost support during this period from Republicans for insufficent conservatism (failed social security reform; deficit spending, Harriet Miers nomination,Dubai port deal; lenient immigration proposal). I suspect the folks who starting the article don;t want to face the truth a more cosnervative Bush would be a more popular one

• • I agree 100% with this analysis. (And I was a Kerry voter.)George Kaplan 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Bush sucks. That's all I have to say about that. Hyukan 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the above is not relevant to "uniter/divider". A perfect divider would have half the country approve strongly, and half the country disapprove strongly, so a perfect divider would have an approval rating of 50%. The usual way to do this is by paying no attention to what the other half of the country wants. While this ideal, absolute polarization is not realistic, we do have lots of people saying "Worst president in history, he should be impeached right now", and on the other side, "Shut up, that's treason.". Not that many people seem to feel neutral about him. Thus, he seems to be a fairly successful divider. Granted, he does become a less successful divider whenever he takes actions that almost nobody likes, because that gives people something to agree on.

(There was a little while there when people were united, after 9/11. But I don't suppose Bush wants to take credit for 9/11.) DanielCristofani 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems

This page could really be better. It is appropriate that Bush's own page be as NPOV as possible, but this article is specifically about various pov's. It could likely hold more positive povs, but it is also missing the major criticisms of Bush, specifically the Iraq War, specifically the extremely controversial build-up to war. Also I think that that there can be done some extreme re-working of the domestic section above the Hurricane Katrina section. Does there really need to be such an extremly detailed poll account in this section? It doesn't seem to fit. 68.42.64.204 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Possible?

I'm not particularly sure that this article can attain neutrality of President Bush. Don't get me wrong, the guy is less credible than Vladimir Putin, but because public perception is so remarkably poor, I honestly doubt that anyone can make it neutral without being factually inaccurate. ThatSandersKid 09:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)-

The facts, not the way they're presented, can lead to a POV conclusion and still leave the article itself neutral. The fact is, an article on a person's perception in public CAN'T lead to a neutral conclusion unless their perception is neutral. As it stands, Bush's perception was positive at one point, and is now extremely negative. That's not POV, it's merely the way things are. --216.153.178.21 12:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This article, if anything, is apologetic - most every criticism of Bush is followed by an "other presidents did the same too" phrase, complete with links to those named presidents. Comparison does not make fact, but it does transform the context of the facts presented. I find this sort of comparison un-objective and highly suspect - I suggest you remove such comparisons within the text body, and instead open a specific "comparitive study" section for a real objective view of how Bush compares to preceding US presidents - an on the level comparison: save the cherrypicking please! THEPROMENADER 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Public perception

What is this article actually supposed to be about? Numerous sections (Hurricane Katrina, event screening, Plame affair, and secret prisons) don't mention the public at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it only serves to let a certain political party vent their frustrations with the president. I don't see a Public perception and assessments of Bill Clinton (substitute any other president for Clinton) article anywhere. This article's a joke and represents a big part of what's wrong with Misplaced Pages. Dubc0724 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats vs. Whys

Although this article contains lots of negative opinions about Bush, that's fine, because the negative perceptions are reported in mainstream media sources. So long as this article sticks to "public perception and assessments" of GWB, it's neutral. It falls miserably into POV, however, when it gets into the "whys", because these are subject to much interpretation, which amounts to original research. As such, I am going to eliminate anything from the article which attempts to "connect the dots", but leave in the well-sourced negative polls and assessments of GWB. Morton devonshire 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that we would not be crossing into POV territory if we also included information related to notable and significant researchers and editorials (not DemocraticUnderground or Freep, of course, or even the DNC or RNC themselves) who offer correlations between events/policies and poll data. If the New York Times runs an in-depth investigative article on Bush's poll ratings correlated with surveys and historical data, that should be fine to include and summarize. Captainktainer * Talk 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To do that would require that we decide these are the events which led to the negative poll results, which would be original research. If the NYT says that these are the reasons, in the same article that states the polls, then that's the NYTimes, not us. But we can't make the correlations ourselves. At all. Morton devonshire 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If the NYTimes references earlier articles or articles from different sources with the polls, that would be acceptable, correct? Captainktainer * Talk 02:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just keep it simple and not do that, okay? That way we can form a consensus. Morton devonshire 02:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

At least for now I can get behind that, but once the article stabilizes a bit more, I think we should revisit this and allow for more complexity. Captainktainer * Talk 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete this page

Sorry, I am a new Wiki user, and don't know my way around here yet but....come on. This articly serves no purpose whatsoever. Polls mean absolutely nothing (Remember Mr. Kerry in 2004? he was ahead in those). I would nominate this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.65 (talk • contribs)

This article was nominated for deletion before, there was no consensus. --Wildnox 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to revisit the issue and work toward a 'consensus'? Dubc0724 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Bunns USMC 06:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that this is a quite random collection of information, certainly some of the topics deserve a more elaborate explanation than just a sentence in the main GWB article. Any suggestions on how we could deal with that? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd include a section on public perception (maybe gleaned from this article), and make continual references to it throughout the article, when relevant. I don't think there's a need for a separate article. I'll probably put this up for another deletion vote to-night, if for nothing else, to reach a consensus.-Thesocialistesq 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The main GWB article is already too big. It is policy to split up pages when they become to big, which is the reason we have this article. Unless a significant portion is merged to the main GWB (which will not happen I am afraid) I am against an outright deletion of this page. We should look for other solutions in my opinion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A merger would solve most of the philosophical compunction with the existence of this article, and retain most of the useful information. But I believe that most of the good information in this article already does exist on the main article, see this . I think I'll list the article for deletion now to test the waters and start the discussion in earnest, but if you can think of a better idea, I'll withdraw it. Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical compunction? It is an article that was split from an another article because that one became to big. Nothing philosophical about it. It happens all the time on Misplaced Pages. That the topic of the new article might not be to everyones liking in not a factor here. My suggestions for this article:

• Remove all the polls, they are never up-to-date and will be of no interest in the future.
• Remove most Hurricane stuff, already has an article on its own.
• Convert this article to a Criticism of George W. Bush article. Sure there will be people who wouldn't like such an article, but GWB has been widely criticised, it would make clear what this article is really about and there are "Critism of..." articles all over Misplaced Pages. That way, we can even remove some stuff from the main GWB article (which is way to big) and expand this one into a proper, coherent article.

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. What I meant by "philosophical compunction" was that I don't believe Misplaced Pages should be in the business of writing articles that are simply about public opinion and the public perception of a figure. I think that because of the vague subject matter of articles like this, it invites personal opinion and original research. I'm all for moving it to "Criticism of George W. Bush", because that has been an important social trend that can be discussed and evaluated. Without any objection, I'll move the page in a few hours and start reworking it. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 03:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I will help you improve it and rework it when I have the time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not make this: Public_Opinion_of_GWB and bring all the poll tracking and popularity tracking and show the synchronization of those with the criticism and praise of GWB during his tenure.--Gkklein 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A general trend in the polls could be helpful, but certainly not week-to-week updates of the latests polls as happened here some time ago. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe this page should be deleted. Regardless of whether or not I agree with it, I see no place in an encyclopedia for articles of criticism or support. I don't think either idea is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Many of the so-called facts mentioned on this page will be refuted, altered, or changed in some way in the near future, so I believe this page serves no historical purpose. Encyclopedias should be collections of facts, not collections of opinions, so I think devoting an entire article to opinions is irrational. Leave that to the historians and the bloggers. Fleagle11 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be a fact that someone holds an opinion.--A gx7 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of text because of inappropriate language, not because of content dispute.

Portrayal as a Southron

The anti-Bush media in Northern cities (SF & NY etc except FOX News) has tried to portray the President as "Southern and stupid", while receptive media outlets down South have tried to paint him as a "good old boy". Bush does not in fact fit either perception. Yankee Bushes Elder and Younger, like Pennsylvania Dutch Eisenhower, are of Northern origin and their Texas connections are what some Southern Democrats criticize as Carpetbagger in their components. For instance, large corporations in sectors such as the oil industry are typically part of the Gilded Age establishment began in the Reconstruction era and founded by Northerners, with Scalawag support. Southerners are not typically in control of technological industries, which were the mainstay of the GOP when it started out as a repackaging of the American Whig Party. The Bush family's political and/or economic prominence began in Ohio, the mainstay of Lincolnian Republicans actively hostile to the Solid South. Many conservatives question Bush's commitment to national security as it pertains to Mexico, wondering about Columba Bush's influence on this apparent laxity in handling illegal immigration to the United States. A charge yet refuted, is that Bush uses cultural appropriation (Southern strategy) in order to maintain Southern partisan allegiance. Recently, a Washington insider has come forth and stated that the Bush Administration is not "in bed" with religious conservatism as once thought. Florida congressman Mark Foley's activities, as well as Arizona congressmen Jim Kolbe's, have raised question about the legitimacy of neoconservatism and whether it is indeed feasibly operative or a technique to gain ratings. These events can be interpreted in the light of the Bushes' percieved cold shoulder to Zell Miller's Jacksonian keynote speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Numbers of former Democrats support Bush because they would not support Kerry, especially with the culture war rhetorics of both Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich ever since the Clinton Administration. Bush's declared reverence for Reagan has some Conservatives wondering what is so "conservative" about a Hollywood star, especially since Hollywood is percieved as anti-American. They wonder why the GOP that Joseph McCarthy identified with would court Hollywood as representative of their party.

Let's see how to reintegrate the text. Hasbro 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest you find and supply us with sources backing up all the statements in the paragraph. That would help a lot in judging and possibly rewriting this text. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Torture

President bush has stated that "We do not torture," . Yet, many people are concerned about the truth of this statement, because the pentagon says that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat to security , and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop all attempts at limiting torture . Furthermore many people are disturbed by the Bush Administration's use of Extraordinary rendition, where many individuals who are only claimed to be supporting terrorist organizations are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight. The Bush Administrations clear lack of high ranking military or civilian arrests on the charges of homicide and crimes against humanity have spurred distrust in the administration's word when only low ranking "puppets" are being arrested and sentenced to extremely short prison terms of no more than a few months.

The Bush administrations connections to torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.

Post counterarguments, criticisms, and edits or forever hold your peace. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 03:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ANONYMOUS COWARDxCODE inserted this in the global views section of the article and I have removed it. This article is about public perceptions of Bush. In the paragraph above, the only mentions of public perceptions are vague references to things that "many people" believe or are concerned about and a passive voice reference to "spurring distrust". To the extent that the paragraph is subject appropriate to this article, it is unsupported by sources, and so violates WP:V. People, myself included, may indeed by outraged by the possibility that their government is using torture as an interrogation technique, but statements about their opinions must be properly sourced to be included in WP.--Kchase T 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On 07:12, 2 November 2006 User:Captainktainer reverted these comments from Talk:Criticism of George W. Bush with this summary explanation: "(I have any number of profanities to spew in the President's direction, and in the direction of those who voted for that travesty, but this is *NOT* the place for that discussion)"

President bush has stated that "We do not torture,". Yet, many people are concerned about the truth of this and other statements, partly because the pentagon says that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat to security , and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop all attempts at limiting torture , including legislation by President Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by the McCain Detainee Amendment. Furthermore many people are outraged by the Bush Administration's use of Extraordinary rendition, where individuals are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight.

The Bush administrations connections to torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.

Please post counterarguments, criticisms, and edits. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again please do not spuriously remove my cited contributions, especially on the basis that it contains profanities which do not exist. If you find factual errors point them out for me to remove, if you find questionable material that requires additional clarification then by all means revert my additions to *the main article*, and state your reasons. If you find gross grammatical mistakes then fell free to edit them (I believe that is how wikipedia is designed to work, those who are not good at English still have the right to communicate there beliefs with the rest of the world.) I am not being unfair in my requests, I am willing to hear all complaints, but I will not allow you to dismiss my contributions with out a reason. This is *JUST* the place for discussing *criticism* of George W. Bush and his association with others. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I earlier removed this section from the article because it violated WP:V. Even with more sources (which I haven't actually looked at yet) it still violates one of our core policies, WP:NPOV, by not also containing the administration's responses to these torture accusations. In my opinion, it needs that information to be neutral.--Kchase T 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Q And the Senate is moving to pass a law that would affirm, confirm, and enforce that commitment. Does the administration want the CIA exempted from that law?

MR. McCLELLAN: And we've stated our views on that amendment. The House passed a different version of the Department of Defense spending legislation. The Senate included some language on that. We'll be working with congressional leaders as they move forward to pass that legislation.

Q I don't get it. Is that a yes or a no?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into discussions that we're having with congressional leaders about how to move forward on the legislation.

Q You've already said the President is going to veto anything that would exempt us from torture. You have -- this White House demeans --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not correct, that's --

Q -- you demean all Americans when you support torture. And your answer is so fuzzy --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, our answer is very clear, and that's flat-out wrong what you're suggesting, because this President has made it very clear what our policy is --

Q Didn't you say that he would veto any part of that legislation of defense spending?

MR. McCLELLAN: We did express our views on that legislation, but it is not the way you characterized it, because there are laws and treaty obligations that are on the books. We adhere to those laws and treaty obligations.

Q No, you don't. You are supporting torture.

MR. McCLELLAN: You are wrong. This is a -- the United States is a country that --

Q Is the story in the paper today wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- believes in adhering to our laws and our values. And we do. And this President believes in abiding by our laws and our treaty obligations.

Q Why do we keep reading about torture then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you'll let me respond, I will. The President has made it very clear that he does not condone torture, nor would he ever authorize the use of torture --

Q Condone it, but does he allow it?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and our policy is to comply with our laws and our treaty obligations. That's what we expect everyone to do. If there are ever instances of wrongdoing, we investigate and we follow through and hold people accountable.

Given the administrations clear lack of response to the President's threat to veto anti-torture legislation, I can't include it in the article, if you or anyone else would like to find an official response to Bush's views that can be included in wikipedia, then please do so, but I am not going to spend days (perhaps if I were a journalist, but I am going to leave this issue for other members of the community to enlighten me as to what I am unaware) looking for an acceptable quote of what the administration may or may not of said in response to their own views just to uphold npov. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Current revision

President bush has stated that "We do not torture,". Yet, many people and governments don't see it that way and have staged several protests. These sentiments are partly because of the pentagon's determination that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat , and when his administration has repeatedly tried to stop attempts at limiting torture , including legislation by President Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by the McCain Detainee Amendment. Furthermore many people are outraged by the Bush Administration's use of Extraordinary rendition, where individuals are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight. Bush defends this practice on the basis that

the United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that.

The Bush administrations connections to torture has been one of the main considerations in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.

Please post counterarguments, criticisms, and edits. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'Gabriel over the White House' inclusion irrelevent

Deleted the "See Also - Gabriel over the White House" as it was a over half-century old film with absolutely no connection to George W. Bush. Just because some critics have compared him to the main character doesn't make it worthwhile to add. If it was, we'd have to add every reference to villains or propaganda figures people have brought up in connection to a president. Edders 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blair did not question Bush's intellect...

If the article is read, it clearly states that a source, not Tony Blair himself, questioned the Bush's intellect. This clearly needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.158.143 (talk • contribs) 31 Oct 2006

Sentence rephrased. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush in Popular Culture

Love him or hate him, there has been alot of stuff about Bush in popular culture, so I'm adding a section on it. I'll try to make it neutral as possible, although the stuff I'll mention is mostly negative on him. If anyone has anything positive to say for him, feel free to add it. (Justinboden86 01:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

He was voted 8th on a programme on TV's 100 best comedy moments in the UK.

merger proposals

theProject recently proposed merging this article into the main GWB article. I'm not too keen on the proposal, as this article started as a daughter article split off from that one (it's changed quite a bit since then, including a rename). However, I've got another proposal. Much of this article is polling information reflecting domestic and foreign public opinion of Bush. To me, such info belongs in the new Public perception of George W. Bush article. Once the relevant opinion polling parts of this article are moved, the remainder (secs. 1.1 and 1.4 and the intro) is quite small. That small amount could be more readily merged into the main George W. Bush article, leaving this as a redirect to preserve edit history. This article isn't a proper "Criticism" article; for example, it doesn't even have a section on the Iraq War, which is probably the biggest criticism of Bush. Your thoughts?--Kchase T 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement by Kchase. The GWB article is already too long and this article was started while attempting to decrease that size (daughter article). To merge it back into the GWB article just wouldn't make much sense; however, merging this article with Public perception of George W. Bush seems like a good idea. Both articles are about the same general topic anyway. I support a merge with Public perception of George W. Bush. -- AuburnPilot 19:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that, as the guy who proposed nominating the original merger, mainly because I didn't know about Public perception of George W. Bush (it seems to have been created mere days ago, and appears to have been improperly split). Right now, this whole thing is a mess. We have Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush which redirects to Criticism of George W. Bush. We also have another article called Public perception of George W. Bush, which is split off from George W. Bush. My two biggest concerns are that 1) there is no article titled "Criticism ..." because that is inherently a POV fork title -- any merger that accomplishes this end I'll support, and 2) that the split be done properly (with GFDL) attribution. I'm not too knowledgeable on the specifics of the history of this whole mess, so I'll leave it up to someone else to figure out how to deal with these things. But the POV fork must go. theProject 19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The folks at George W. Bush support the POV fork, however they have recently removed nearly all references to it. I am in the process of understanding why this change was supported. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you noticed that already. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"The folks ... support the POV fork" -- I understand this, but NPOV is not negotiable. POV forks go directly against Misplaced Pages policy, and I'm of the opinion that no amount of "consensus" should allow for a violation of NPOV. It's paramount that we approach Misplaced Pages policy here without political bias. theProject

It's not a POV fork. The original point that theProject made was that the retitling may lead to a POV fork. No one is advocating a POV fork. When this article was split off the main GWB article, it was titled differently, and since retitling, it has changed little.--Kchase T 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest renaming it pronto. The current title is very suggestive of a POV fork. :-) theProject 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush, and Criticism of the George W. Bush administration on the media need to all be merged together. I suggest using the title Public perception and criticism of George W. Bush if it is to be a separate article, or merge everything back into George W. Bush. --- RockMFR 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop! No! Wait! Rather than merge this article into another or alter its scope yet again, I think we should sit down and work on it, removing irrelevant polling statistics and merging in important content from the more dissolute Criticism of the George W. Bush administration on the media and Public perception of George W. Bush articles, in accordance with other Criticism of... articles. A change along these lines was resolved before I moved this article to its present location, and I'd invite you to help in the rewriting. As for the idea that this is a "POV fork", I must say most emphatically that it isn't and that it won't be. It isn't because no-one is presently trying to get around the rules or insert POV content. It won't be because articles like this are not doomed to represent one POV. There are many other Criticism of... articles on Misplaced Pages that are perfectly respectable spinouts of other articles. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to have merged most of those other articles. "Criticism of ..." titles are very dangerous and should be avoided on Misplaced Pages with utmost diligence. Again, the title is extremely suggestive of and conducive to a POV fork. theProject 07:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I understand that "Criticism of..." titles can be used for POV forking, and that there must be an added scrutiny of these articles. I don't believe that all "Criticism of..." articles are necessarily POV forks, however, nor that they should be summarily merged or deleted. Criticism of some things is notable and deserving of an article in and of itself. This article especially has a history, and I am willing to personally commit to revamping it if this article is let alone, and the new perception article and the media criticism article are merged into it. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you two agree about the title more than you think. I think we can also reach agreement on what to do with the content here. Since you want to remove these "irrelevant polling statistics", what's wrong with moving them to another article (the one I suggested) which is still explicitly about public opinion of Bush? That seems like the best option here. As to a criticism article, I think Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment is a more thorough treatment of the criticisms lobbed at the Bush Administration. But frankly, a single article on this subject seems woefully inadequate. It would be far better (as already seems to be the dominant trend) to put criticism in articles for each topic (Hurricane Katrina, Iraq War, etc.). Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq is a good example of such a section that was spun out.--Kchase T 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I agree, one single article is woefully inadequate. What if this article was revamped to include criticisms on the topics you listed above, and used as a sort of a central organizing page for all of these criticisms? For instance, the article could have a section on the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, and the 2000 election, integrating and elaborating on content from those pages and linking to them. I'm not as sure about keeping brand new the public perception article, but if there were to be a place for these intricate polling numbers, that would be it. If we go through with these changes, I'd be glad to move that content to that page. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, I have no objections to merging if it makes sense, but in the past there was a public perception of... article that combined all sorts of random facts, without clear link between them. In that case, seperate articles documenting for example polls, the impeachment lobbies and public criticism are way preferred. We should, also not be afraid afraid of using the word Criticism (either as a title or section). The word in itself it absolutely not POV, neither is legitimate use of it. There has been a lot of criticism of GWB (evidenced by a lot of references in the article) and therefore it makes sense to use the word. The fact that such an article might lead to a POV fork is not a good reason not use it. If that's what the article is about, that's would the article should be called. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

I think we have consensus, but I proposed the merger, so I'd like someone else to check this.

• Favoring: kchase02 (as proposer), AuburnPilot, theProject
• Alternate, "public perceptions and criticisms of GWB" favored by RockMFR
• Alternate, moving polling info here, but leaving the remainder of this article alone, favored by the Socialestesq
• No clear opinion:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE

So a 4-1 consensus to move the polling, but a spirited debate above about whether to keep a "Criticism of" article. I'm disinclined to do anything with the remaineder of the article until that debate is more resolved. However, I think we're ready to move the polling info.--Kchase T 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means. If I've got the time, I'll move the polling data to-night.-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's moved. Now to get it sorted...--Kchase T 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thank-you. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 06:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Person of the Year

I don't see what TIME naming Bush "Person of the Year" in 2000 and 2004 has to do with criticism of the man. 71.203.209.0 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This is highly suspect.A gx7 05:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is "highly suspect". Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but even in an article about criticism, WP:NPOV still applies. More specifically, the undue weight section of NPOV which reads: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." TIME's person of the year is the man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." In other words, it could be criticism or it could be praise. AuburnPilot 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is from the Person of the Year article:

"There was a massive public backlash in the United States after Time named Ayatollah Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979. Since then, Time has generally shied away from choosing candidates who are extremely unpopular with a majority of people for crimes they've commited. Time's Person of the Year 2001—in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks — was New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It was thought that the rules of selection ("the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news") made the obvious choice Osama bin Laden. Previous choices such as Adolf Hitler were cited to demonstrate that Person of the Year did not necessarily mean "best human being of the year." The issue which declared Rudolph Giuliani as Person of the Year included an article that mentioned Time's earlier decision to make Ayatollah Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979 and the 1999 rejection of Hitler as "Person of the Century." The article seemed to imply that Osama bin Laden was a stronger candidate than Giuliani for Person of the Year and Hitler was a stronger candidate than Albert Einstein for Person of the Century, but they were not ultimately selected due to what the magazine described as their "negative" influence on history.

and

"In recent years, the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too U.S.-centered, which is a departure from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. Until Bono received the shared title in 2005, Time had gone over a decade without recognizing a non-American individual. A breakdown by nationality also shows that more than a half of the people who have ever been selected for the title have been Americans. Furthermore incumbent US Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were designated Men of the Year in the years of the election that led them to the high office in the following year, without them necessarily having been influential in any other way at the time."

It may be the official stance of Time that the award is not necessarily an honour, but as you can see there is clear bias in favour of popular and American candidates.

This artcle is purely about Criticism of George W. Bush. The title says so. These days the Person of the Year award does not have enough to do with criticism to include it in the article.A gx7 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the information presented above shows "a clear bias" of American candidates. Four of the Americans you mentioned were sitting Presidents and during their reigns each of the four were the most powerful person on Earth, with more capacity and power than anyone else to influence world events.

'WMD Joke Controversy'

I am just starting to review the plethora of Bush articles. Could any of you who are familiar with them tell me if there is any mention of the 'WMD Joke Controversy' from the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner?

This one:

"Family of Slain Soldier Calls Bush WMD Jokes "Disgraceful""

-snip-

"But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing."

"George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country.""

Thanks! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nucular

According to the citation used only Eisenhower used the same pronunciation as George W. Bush not any of the others listed. So I belive the others should be taken off. Unless another citation cane be found specifically stating the other Presidents listed. Gang14 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't always easy to tell whether an error is a typo or a thinko. Take the pronunciation of nuclear as "nucular." That one has been getting on people's nerves since Eisenhower made the mispronunciation famous in the 1950's. In Woody Allen's 1989 film Crimes and Misdemeanors, the Mia Farrow character says she could never fall for any man who says "nucular." That would have ruled out not just Dubya, but Bill Clinton, who said the word right only about half the time. (President Carter had his own way of saying the word, as "newkeeuh," but that probably had more to do with his Georgia accent than his ignorance of English spelling.

Going Nucular by Geoff Nunberg

I could possibly see the justification for removing Jimmy Carter, but not the others. AuburnPilot 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on further reading of the article, I don't even see Kennedy mentioned. Ford is only mentioned in passing...I'd say to meet the citation's claims, Kennedy and Ford should be removed. The sentence should also be reworded to ID Jimmy's pronunciation as southern. AuburnPilot 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Major revision underway

I've copied this article to my userpage and I'm working on making the article more substantive. I should get some sections added to this article over the weekend. Feel free to edit the userpage version. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When do you think you'll be putting it back? I wanna make some minor changes but don't feel like doing it twice :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and change the main article. I'm primarily using the one on my userpage to outline the article, and I shouldn't disturb any minor changes you make. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Intelectual capacity and religious belief

I feel there should be some mention of Bush's strong religious beliefs in this article, which have been criticised by atheists such as Richard Dawkins. There is also the question of how it relates to his mental capacity - his beliefs seem to be quite simplistic. He genuinely seems to believe in absolute good and evil as tangible forces, suggesting a lack of coherant comprehension of the world. Mojo-chan 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

ehhhhhh...I don't think that linking his religious belief with his intellectual capacity would be helpful. A mention of criticism of his black-and-white/Evangelical Christian/neoconservative world view might fit in, though. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely though, it is legitimate to examine his beleifs and how they affect his actions and decisions. For example, some argue that he tends to simplify things into a good/evil stand-off, when in fact the situation is more complex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mojo-chan (talk • contribs) 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

How exactly was the "estimation" of Bush's IQ made? Did he take a test? Also, how is the correlation between SAT score and IQ measured? One last question, and this may have been different when Bush took the test, but everyone I knew had an SAT score that rounded off to 10, how did Bush receive a 566 in Math? The IQ section seems very flimsy. To present it as an example of criticism is one thing, but the article seems to lend weight to the findings of these studies that seem highly suspect.

Missing info

We are missing criticisms on the following:

• Patriot Act (Has just a mention-we need more)
• Clear Skies Act
• Healthy Forests Act or Initiative
• NSA
• No Child Left Behind (Again, needs more info)
• Guantanamo
• Signing Statements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.255.229.66 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC). 208.255.229.66 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Al Gore is verboten

While this article is deemed acceptable, leftists feel the Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions page should be deleted. Feel free to chime in on the discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions--Jayzel 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum for pushing polarization and politics. Al Gore had two articles: "criticisms ans misconceptions" and "controversies". Now he has one, like Bush does here.--Jackbirdsong 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

IQ derived from SAT scores

I don't think that we can really rely on SAT scores to figure out a person's intellect. Prep schools spend four years continuously preparing students to take the SATs, so it's only natural that those students would have high scores. I know this from personal experience and also from professors who evaluated the system. Bush went to a prep school, so since he had so much preparation for the SATs, the derived IQ could just be artificially inflated. I thought I'd add it in the article, but I don't want to because I'm sure I'll get at least thirty angry messages from people who don't agree.J.J. Bustamante 03:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflating Bush's SAT score with his IQ is wrong. There is a difference between competence and intelligence. I think Bush's biggest problem is his incomptenece at his job, as evidenced in the federal response to Katrina, the US Attorney firing scandal, the mismanagement of the Iraq war, the domestic spying program under the patriot act, just to name a few. These events all point to a president who is either mentally detached or just a liar who 'plays dumb' (like when he said no one could predict the Levys in New Orleans would be breached, then hours later there is a footage from a videoconference where Bush is told that they DO expect the Levys to be breached, did he honestly 'not recall' that meeting or did he lie?) I think these attacks on Bush's intelligence seem petty and take away from the real crticisms of his incompetence in a leadership role.

I agree that the use of an SAT score to predict IQ is questionable. SAT scores explain less than 60% of the variance in IQ.. and I don't know that the sources cited are credible. Bush's transcript is sef-published, which seems to me not to meet Misplaced Pages standards for verifiablity. There is no source cited for Clinton's IQ. St. Cloud Times does not verifly claim that Bush's official IQ data are not available. Dr.enh 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Other incidents targeted by the press (formerly knows as "Strange behavior")

I've removed the section titled "strange behavior" that used its only reliable source to prove a kiss and back rub actually happened. The rest was nothing more than original research backed up by opinion and conjecture. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News, San Fransisco Chronicle, and Richmond Times Dispatch all mainstream newspapers, and as such all seem to me to comply with Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Reliable_sources. I would argue that the Huffington Post article cited is also reliable, but I can see how a valid opposing article could be made. The San Francicso Chronicle and Richmond Times Dispatch sources cited are not opinion articles. Is there any Misplaced Pages policy against citing the factual assertions made in the Dallas Morning News opinion piece? If so, please direct me to the appropriate policy, and I will look for a source that complies with the policy. The YouTube link is orignial video of the event described in the San Francisco Chronicle; I thought "a picture is worth a thousand words," but if Misplaced Pages is deemed an unreliable source, I have no objections to that reference being deleted. Dr.enh 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that a couple of incidents, without any relationship between them, are grouped together under an arbitrary heading "Strange behavior". That is, in my opinion, original research, and should not be included, in this manner at least, in the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) and Mbc362. You simply cannot draw conclusion like this. It is original research. Who says it's "strange behavior"? Your source for the kiss and other "behaviors" simply state they occurred. This is utterly ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Strange Behavior section is not original research. The section is exclusively based on a summary of earlier publications (with references) on Bush’s behavior. All references articles describe the behavior as strange, inappropriate, or possibly indicative of poor mental health.

I didn't even bother looking at the sources - my problem is with the material itself. You took unrelated, extremely minor quirks and basically tried to create a personality disorder out of if. None of the things you listed are valid criticisms of Bush. I mean, "kissing a female conductor on the top of her head" - What the hell does that have to do with anything? Giving undue weight to this type of crap is not NPOV.--Mbc 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and the fact that the user has now readded the material is beyond. How this could be considered acceptable in any stretch of the imagination is ridiculous. The text actually links "unwanted back rub" to the article on sexual harassment. This is a serious violation of WP:BLP and now borders on libel. - auburnpilot talk 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As evidenced by the references, mainstream newspapers have criticized Bush for his odd or inappropriate behavior. Including such criticisms on this criticisms page is not giving them undue attention, because I make no claim that they are majority views. I have modified the section to stick extremely closely to statements made in my references. If you believe that anything I have written is not backed up by the referenced source, or that the referenced source is not reliable, then please tell me which statement or reference is problematic, and why.

Where to begin? The first source you provide only mentions the text in passing (and only goes so far as to say his friends were "shocked," it doesn't even call the actions shocking), the second source references another website, which is of questionable reliability/neutrality. The third source specifically says that "the incident didn't get a lot of play on major TV media" and basically implies its an internet phenom. The last simply shows that the incident did in fact happen. This is a clear violation of undue weight if I ever saw one. No, you have not addressed my concerns.--Mbc 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just deal with the massage for now: the threshold for reliability is not "a lot of play on major TV media, but mention in a mainstream publication, such as the SF Chronicle and the major European newspapers (Guardian, Bild) linked to from the Chronicle reference. There is a reference in the LA times, etc.

• http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-europe1jun01,1,798270.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/Observer/world/story/0,,2078407,00.html
• http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/news/aktuell/2006/07/18/merkel-bush-liebes-attacke/merkel-bush-liebes-attacke.html
• http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17244330.htm
• The event was filmed by Russian TV

I'd say that your reasoning for not including it is an example of bias in favor of major American television networks and against mainstream print and non-American media. Your thoughts? Dr.enh 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The event was filmed by Russian TV because they were filming the meeting, they weren't specifically looking for embarrassing things Bush has done. All of the english sources you've just listed simply mention the event in passing. They don't even criticize Bush for it. The german source currently has "Ihr Neuer war Porno-Star" as the main headline on its frontpage. RS? Nope. This page is not a list of every thing Bush has done wrong. It is to describe the major points of criticism he has received throughout his life. You have still failed to show how an act of "beating his chest" or giving the german chancellor an unwanted neck rub are significant points of criticism. You can accuse me of bias all you want but its not going to give any more credence to your claims. --Mbc 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-europe1jun01,1,798270.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
  • "And Germany's chancellor once got an impromptu back rub from President Bush..."
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/Observer/world/story/0,,2078407,00.html
  • "President George Bush who, to her alarm, gave her an affectionate back rub.."
• http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/news/aktuell/2006/07/18/merkel-bush-liebes-attacke/merkel-bush-liebes-attacke.html
  • "Von hinten schleicht er verschmitzt an Kanzlerin Angela Merkel (CDU) heran, überrascht sie mit einer Blitz-Massage"
• http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17244330.htm
  • "Even Bush's pal German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wolfowitz must go, siding with European members over the U.S. leader who gave her a shoulder rub at a summit last year."

Each of these sources describes the event happened yes, but none of them calls it "strange behavior". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the 'appelation question' below. THEPROMENADER 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The section has its place here, but it has to be rewritten from an objective point of view: our role here is to document. Bush has shown a lot of 'strange behaviour', but that is a title a little to vague for an objective article - what is 'strange'? Perhaps change it to something like 'un-presidential behaviour' or 'behaviour targeted by the press' - the Merkel shoulder-rub is a perfect example of that. Another more recent example is Bush telling the mothers of fallen soldiers who had just recieved a commemorative coin honoring their losses "don't sell it on eBay". The list is long and can be found everywhere in the mainstream press, so there should be no problem with this section if its raison d'être is clear and complete with mainstream sources. THEPROMENADER 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree that such a section belongs here. Who gets to determine what is "strange" or "un-presidential"? The problem is that the very attempt at determining what constitutes "strange" and "un-presidential" behavior is 1) original research and 2) a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, you see the eBay comment as "strange" whereas I see it as typical for Bush's personality/sense of humor. That's the problem; such a section could never be included and not violate our policies. - auburnpilot talk 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then call it 'behaviour targeted by the press' or somthing of the like. If a certain 'behaviour' or event - no matter what adjective you tack to it - was (whatever) enough to be documented everywhere in mainstream media, then it most certainly has its place here. THEPROMENADER 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, while it could be argued that labelling the behavior "strange" is subjective, the section should be renamed instead of completely removed. - Wikdot 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've rewritten the section from an objective point of view - 'behaviour widely published by the press' - and reinstated it. Please expand. THEPROMENADER 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion on what constitutes appropriate evidence for a "Criticism of..." page. I am somewhat unclear because criticism is, by definition, a subjective opinion. Hence, I am also unclear what is meant by an “objective point of view” on a page entitled, “Criticism of…” Nonetheless, I appreciate the revisions that have been made.

I would propose that the threshold of evidence for something to be stated on a “Criticism of …” page is 1) that a reliable source has published that the action occurred, and 2) that a previously published reliable source has published that the action was criticisized (or defended). Without Condition (2), the criticism (or defense) would be original research. This seems to be the same threshold of evidence used in the “September 11, 2001 attacks” section. Does anyone disagree with these criteria for evidence? If so, what would be more appropriate criteria?

Back to the Merkel incident. The numerous examples I cited above demonstrate that the shoulder rub happened . The referenced page A-1 article in the San Francisco Chronicle establishes that the action was criticized : “it was just one of the Bush G-8 gaffes that garnered considerable space in the blogosphere”; “But it was the massage for Merkel -- notably the only female at the G-8 table -- which earned Bush the title of "Groper in Chief" on some Web sites”; One German tabloid, BILD-Zeitung, which posted the link to the video and headlined it: ‘Bush: Love Attack on Merkel!’"; “his true lack of intelligence and emotional maturity surfaces for all to see”; “commentator and author Steve Young's blog on the Huffington Post Web site says Bush looks like the "Lounge Lizard in Chief -- so he advises Democrats to seize the moment and make use of "the irony of a president who's supposed to represent our best, giving the Chancellor of Germany an inappropriate and unrequested backrub.”; “Even some veteran White House insiders say the incident is a hair-raiser. "I mean, did Reagan do that to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher? He's not giving massages to (Russian President Vladimir) Putin -- and he's the one who thinks he has a great relationship with Putin," said Martha Whetstone, former political director for the Northern California Democratic National Committee”; “Leaders should not act that way.; “Americans can "add it to the long list of embarrassing moments for our president”; etc. Dr.enh 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There's not need to go to such length to justify this article's presence and purpose, and there's no risk of being led into the details by apologists if one retains an objective and factual sum of evidence - the big picture. Esssentialy, you are right: criticising someone in first person in an article is not the same as constituting the fact of a widespread tendency of criticism.

Forget the "original research" claim though, as it is only a (strawman) distraction impossible to apply to this argument - anyone is perfectly capable of finding a selective set of sources to make an article that in sum will be a criticism, and it will not be original research, so we can even argue to the contrary - to the end of the earth. Wiki's "original research" is ill-defined and ill-used IMHO - because if anything is factual. already published and sourced, it's not.Let's not digress.

So what we have here is an article on a president that has accumulated so much critical press and negative polls that it has split into an article of its own. This is only normal for Wiki. Still, I think that it should be rewritten into a more "attested criticism" form. Please see below. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Article reworking?

May I suggest that this article be rewritten into categories, rather than events? For example, Iraq is only one reason for Bush criticism - perhaps group all this (with some other criticisms about his administration's dealings with other countries) under "foreign policy"? "Torture" could perhaps go under "civil rights" with other well-documented anti-constitutional efforts (wiretapping, Plame, firing of district attorneys, etc). "Katrina" could go under "domestic policy" with other well-documented cases where national disasters turned catastrophe because of incompetent Bush-assigned administrators - perhaps health care could go there too. A reference to the Rolling Stone article "Worst President Ever" would be a great lead-in to this article, and provide you with several sources in the bargain. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposed reorganization would make the article more useful. I also suggest that the paragraphs on Bush's linguistic errors, mispronounciations, and misuse of words do not belong under the heading of intellectual capacity. Public speaking is a skill separate from intelligence. Dr.enh 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps we can start by grouping the existing sections into "foreign policy" (wars, diplomacy), "domestic policy" (health care, security)... perhaps a "character" section (questioned happenings, intelligence, noted linguistic foibles)... why not a "career" section (service record, failed enterprises)... press criticism on all of the above has been widespread, but at least organised in this way it will be coherent. Thoughts? THEPROMENADER 09:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I would call the third section something like, "Personal Characteristics," because "Character" does not seem broad enough to include intelligence and linguistic foibles. Dr.enh 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Rather than organizing the article by types of issue (e.g. domestic, foreign, etc.), how about organizing it by type of criticism? For example, (1) Bush is unintelligent and/or incompetent; (2) the Bush administration places ideology over reality, e.g., Greg Theilmann's charge of the use of "faith-based intelligence"; and (3) "Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy." --Dr.enh 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps the title of the article should be changed from "Criticism of George W. Bush" to "Criticism of the George W. Bush Administration"? --Dr.enh 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you for the title change, but please be careful with the category titles: we are here to present facts as they are (in proportions reflecting the actual status quo), and it is for the reader to make his conclusion... I think it would be more objective to single out areas of influence (as I suggested) and, within those, work down to the details. For example "faith based initiatives" is local policy... part of education?

I'm sorry to say that criticism of this president is so widespread that it covers most every category - but our job here is to report other people's reporting, not do reporting of our own. I hope you see my point. THEPROMENADER 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's create a "Criticism of the George W. Bush Administration" page and move the domestic policy and foreign policy to it. We could leave the personal characteristics (questioned happenings, intelligence, noted linguistic foibles) on the "Criticism of George W. Bush" page and add a career section. Perhaps each page should be linked to the other. Agreed? --Dr.enh 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, yes. I do think that one day the two pages will be merged again... but you're right in stating that the Bush administration is not Bush. One article, pointed criticism on the person, another pointed criticism on the administration as a whole - yes, fine. Let's keep them objective and third-person - no opinionated 'comparitive studies' such as this article already has! I move that we remove these. For now, go ahead with the move - you don't need my approval : ) Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the reorganization into personal criticisms and criticisms of his administration but as the two are deeply intertwined, maybe it would be better to leave it as part of the same page. Leaving the current page with just criticisms of his intellectual capacity and "odd" behavior would make it seem shallow, when in fact much of the actual criticism of Mr. Bush is due to the actions his administration has taken which he implicitly or explicitly approved of. Wikdot 04:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"higher scores than"

"It should be noted that Bush had better grades in college than either Al Gore (who still did graduate cum laude, contrary to Bush), or John Kerry."

I have reservations about this phrase, because even its sources aren't clear - they are comparative studies that themselves aren't clear ('grades as an undergraduate' - what about other years, final scores at graduation?) - one cannot take one instance of higher grades and present it as an argument for all-round intelligence. Anyhow, this article is not a Bush apology; it is about published material critical of Bush. We should either complete this section with global and comprehensive statistics, or we should remove it. THEPROMENADER 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual and Psychological...

I'm sorry to say, but this almost entire section is speculative bunk. No Bush IQ score has ever been published to date, and the "studies" mentioned (including one requiring a paid registration - no good here) base their 'reasoning' (as there were no 'findings') on a 'translation' of SAT scores to IQ points. Well, for starters, you can prepare for SAT exams, so I don't know how they can compare this to an IQ test.

This section is far too speculative, comparative and apologetic and must be improved to something containing hard, referencable fact. THEPROMENADER 08:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, but the fact that a reference needs subscription does NOT make it an unsuitable ref. Simply get yourself a subscription if you so desperately want to read it. That one ref is, I assume (as you do not specify it), a perfecly acceptable scientific study (and media coverage of it), published in a peer-reviewed journal, which estimated the IQs of all US presidents. That study was NOT based on SAT scores. There were other, web-published estimates that used the SAT scores in the article previously, but when I re-added this stuff, I deliberately left those out this time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If the study is so established, important and reliable then I think you can find a more accessible websource or other reference. I seem to remember reading something about paid sites, but will have to look this up later. Needless to say that the paper is at best an educated speculation - it is not founded on hard fact, as none to date is available on the subject. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Accesiblity of a source and reliability are two unrelated concepts. For example, studies published in the scientific journal Nature are generally regarded very reliable, but you definately have to pay for most of its contents. Discouraging the use of not-online sources will only skew the bias in Misplaced Pages even more, therefore there is no such policy. Scientific papers, printed magazines and printed newspapers make perfectly valid sources, also in the absence of an online version. As all scientific studies, this paper has a certain level of speculation, but then again, the whole concept of IQ is not as sturdy and rigid as some people think. Finally, the study was covered often by other newspapers etc, establishing its notability: Times: Het Nieuwsblad (Belgian): History News Network:. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but this does nothing to show that your source is not a widespread one; rather a vague and selective speculative one chosen to 'prove' a point. If you would like to be as objective as the articles you cite, then you must cite the same, or present your information in the same way in the same context as they - after all, it is their (the press') criticism that you should be citing here - instead of making a single case for a single point of view. THEPROMENADER 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say there. If you suggest the news sources should be cited instead of the primary research article, that is fine with me and I will be happy to rewrite the section accordingly. If you mean anything else, please explain. In addition, there is no POV here, the research article estimated the results of all presidents in the same way, and this came out, like it or not. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I was pretty straighforward, but to try again in clearer language: the only way this article can remain NPOV is for it to be a real (not selective) reflection of press coverage concerning George W. Bush - as a whole. Any comparitive essays not a comparison with the record of every president in history would be also NPOV. I do not think that "estimations of IQ's", no matter how worthy the source, is worthy of publication as a cited source for concrete information concerning IQ's, should not be presented as such, and IMHO is not even worthy of mention in a factual article; this article exists as a temoinage of a high level of criticism of George W. Bush, it is not an article to present arguments for and against the criticisms themselves, as this could never be anything but POV. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we simply disagree :). You say this article should be about press coverage of GWB. The IQ study is covered by press. You say any comparison should include many (and preferably all) presidents to date. The IQ study does compare almost all presidents in recent history. Then finally, you you say you still think the IQ study should not be included because it are only "estimates". The problem there is that EVERY IQ VALUE, no matter how it is determined, is an estimate. It is not a fixed value for each person, but depends highly on how it is measured, when it was measured and even the mood the subject was in. Although calculated in a different way than most people are familiar with, these values are as good as any IQ value. Although I agree some parts of this article need cleaning up, it is not the IQ part I am sorry to say. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What we disagree on is the validity of the source - if all IQ tests are estimates, than this test is an estimate of estimates in many cases where information wasn't available. An official IQ number or numbers may be a valid source, but there are none - for no seeming valid reason - for president George W. Bush. This non-official "essay" is just too special and unreliable to merit so much space in the article (an entire paragraph of "for and against" essay is dedicated to its 'findings'), and its raison d'être in this article seems apologetic - "he's smarter than others". If you would like to say this will official numbers, fine, but this sort of apologetic speculation is certainly not what one could call encyclopedic. THEPROMENADER 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly where you and I disagree. What you call an "essay", I regard a scientific study in a peer reviewed journal. Now, although I agree that peer review is not the same as truth, Misplaced Pages is also not about truth, but about verfiability/attribution/pick your favorite policy. Unless retracted, surpassed by other studies or highly criticized (none of which applies for this particular study) a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal makes a perfect source for Wikipidia, especially when the study was covered by main stream media (as is the case here). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You say it yourself: the quest here is not to "explain truth", but to repeat hard fact. Because of its speculative nature, that "study" is anything but this - and its role here is as a defense for a "Bush isn't so stupid after all" point of view. This article is a witness to how the press treats Bush - not to present "for and against" cases. At best, that study should be cited because it was cited by the press, not cited in itself. THEPROMENADER 07:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no objections to that last compromise (citing press instead of directly citing the study). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lies?

I can't believe there is no discusssion of the public lies that George Bush has made in speeches and to the press. Particularly for the lead up to the Iraq War and his lies regarding the Plame Affair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.135.0.6 (talk • contribs)

Well, these would have to be shown in an objective point of view - instances seen through the eyes of the media that reported them. I would rather call it "contradictions" than "lies" though. Sign your comments, please. THEPROMENADER 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to know what these lies are. Could you provide some concrete evidence for us? 2nd Piston Honda 08:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

removal of the photo and caption

The caption reads: "Bush sits immobile for seven minutes after being informed about the September 11, 2001 attacks, while children read to him from the story "The Pet Goat"." This is under criticism of his leadership. The point it makes is a well known criticism of his leadership. Miacheal Moore makes that point in his documentary, and so do others. It is being removed a few conservatives here, and I'm restoring it. I hope they can explain themselves here before they remove it again. This article is supposed to report on and present criticisms of George Bush, so why is this major point made by critics being censored?Giovanni33 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not addressing this to Gio, but to others: This article exists to present information about the criticism. Presenting the criticism itself (which he openly admits is what he's doing) is an NPOV violation.

Giovanni33 knows this. A.J.A. 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is sophistry. To present information about the critcism entails presenting the criticism itself, reporting the fact. That is all that captions does. How do you report on what it is, without reporting what it is? If you are saying the way we report on this POV lacks NPOV standads, then please make your case instead of edit waring by suppressing the entire POV itself, ulness the way you present information about the cricism is to blank the criicism? That is hardly an effective way to present information, although it is a good way NOT to present that information.Giovanni33 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone approaching this in good faith can see the difference between "so-and-so says, 'X'" and "X". You see the distinction whenever it suits you, not when it doesn't. A.J.A. 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you want to say, "critics say" that "Bush sits immobile for seven minutes after being informed about the September 11, 2001 attacks," even though that is just an accepted fact, well established, that no one disputes? It was caught on video! No, that is just reporting a damaging fact. Its the interpretation of what that means which is open to POV pushing, and has to be attributed properly in NPOV terms. That is not what you are doing. You are blaking the fact itself. Dont try to confuse things. Anyone approaching this in good faith can see the difference.Giovanni33 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And who says it's a "damaging fact"? A.J.A. 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you do, or else you would not feel such a need to blank the fact! heheGiovanni33 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Placing it in this article is a pretty clear tipoff as to the intention. Your own statements are even clearer: you explicitly intend it to make a criticism. A.J.A. 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I dont make the criticism. That is not our job. Our job is to report notable criticism of which this is clearly one. I explicitly recognize the notablity of this criticism and explicitly intend to see that its given coverage in this appropriate article. I'm sure other editors will restore it in due time.Giovanni33 21:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That the above is in bad faith can bee seen by reference to everything he's said so far. A.J.A. 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the only bad faith I see here is you calling this bad faith. Please assume good faith with your interpreations.Giovanni33 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As if the whole conversation hadn't just happened. You never quit. A.J.A. 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said this conversation hasn't happened? It has and its clear to me that you have no basis to suppress this valid factual statement. At least you have failed to come up with any valid reasons, other than some obscure sophistry that does not apply to this situation.

BTW, Gio is out recruiting: . A.J.A. 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I dont want to violate 3RR, but your suppression of this information can not stand.Giovanni33 22:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Lakoff, George (2006-10-03). "Bush Is Not Incompetent". Rockridge Institute. Retrieved 2007-06-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Biography articles of living people