Talk:George W. Bush

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.

Texas Air National Guard Favoritism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In case you didn't check QoB's talk page while having this conversation please see my comment here [1] at User talk:QueenofBattle's talk page. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Plus, Queen is incorrect on [his] her assessment of BLP policy. [[2]] allows for a single source, but the source must be, in essence, above refute such as a marriage license. That said, multiple sources is a good rule of thumb because anything juicy is going to be everywhere if it can be verified. In this case, the source in question may we be accurate but given the white glove approach that BLP's use, its not proper here in this form because only one author has found out this information and mainstream press has yet to pick up on it. If you can find additional citations that support the argument or a stronger source then I can see it. I did find the part about Bush test results to be interesting and that may be meritous of inclusion with additional sources. Remember, you can let the facts speak for themselves. The picture they paint is plain enough. RTRimmel (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush's education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIA interrogation tactics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• ABC - "Human rights groups and many Obama officials have condemned such methods as torture. Bush officials have vigorously disagreed."
• AP - "Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said waterboarding has not been used since, but some human rights groups have urged Obama to hold CIA employees accountable for what they, and many Obama officials, say was torture."

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

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

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

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

So your argument is that the other wikipedia articles on the relevant subjects are POV and not well researched? Have you taken your issues to those articles to discuss the problems with their POV issues? Also, "However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources" and that's all we are doing, taking their well researched and stable explinations for what a topic is (as well as their cites) and putting it here. Again, I'll mention that the definition of waterboarding on thewaterboarding page has been there for a year, that speaks worlds to its concensus and stability. And you may want to read the Reuters article, it explains why the CIA chief didn't say anything quite clearly. "The caution reflected a public debate over whether to prosecute CIA employees who used the simulated drowning technique." This is a violation of WP:RS as he's not a third party in this instance, he has a direct stake in the outcome. But why am I lecturing you on policy, you know WP:RS quite well. Most of your cites are the current stash of memos and reek of WP:Recentism further the current politically charged debate you speak of it whether or not to charge former CIA interrogators for torture, and that Obama preemptivly pardoned them for doing their jobs does not say that waterboarding is torture or not though, truthfully, why would he bother unless there was a reason... You may also want to read this [[3]] but I'll warn you its pretty grim. We should probably mention the memos in the article as well... but that's a whole different discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Working this Paragraph

When reading through this article I have found this paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

Lets start easy:

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

Nationality Listing

In the article “George W. Bush” the synopsis box contains the label “nationality” with a value of “American”. The name America describes two continents, north and south, in the Western Hemisphere. An American is someone who lives in America. It is also a nickname for a citizen of the United States, but in this sense tens of millions of Americans are marginalized by the denial of recognition. This scenario can be likened to brand monopolization in the commercial world, where the name Coke referred to all soft drinks or the brand Kleenex stood in for all facial tissue. Therefore, the use of the term American as a designation of nationality is inappropriate. Please replace this reference, and ideally, globally across all Wiki media, with one that denotes nationality rather than continental status, e.g. United States.
Thanks
Apachegila (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary says "American" means (first definition) 1. A person born in, or a citizen or inhabitant of, the United States of America. "[4] 2:"An inhabitant of the Americas. More often this is specified as either North American, Central American or South American." "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" has a similar first definition and second definition.In this infobox, we are using the first definition. Contrariwise, when someone shouts "Death to Americans," they probably are not expressing their hatred for residents of Tierra del Fuego. Edison (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, when a vocabulary entry lists multiple definitions, the first one carries the most weight. And colloquially, the term “American” refers to a citizen of the United States of America, even on the streets of Tehran. Against these odds, little to no chance of altering the article was expected. But a Wikipedia biographical entry, especially one that garners an international audience, should be more than just conversational. Using such a forum to ameliorate this particular type of chauvinism can and should be utilized to appeal to our higher sensibilities. Witness the elimination of offensive sports team mascots or the furling of the Stars and Bars (Confederate War Flag) at our statehouses over the last couple of decades after prejudice had been exposed. And on that most important front and the one Wikipedia should be most concerned with, the linguistic landscape, Merriam Webster Online ([5]) has taken a strong, progressive stand:

1 : an American Indian of North America or South America

2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America

3 : a citizen of the United States

By the way, Edison’s quote of foreign protest chants is incorrect. The quote should read “Death to America”, not “Death to Americans”, which connotes an entirely different meaning. The eradication of an abstraction is certainly far less threatening than the notion of actual individual physical assault. Funny how just two little letters can make all the difference in the world!

Apachegila (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about the purpose of this project. People from the United States are Americans, whether you like that or not. It is not Wikipedia's role to attempt to change this fact or "take a stand" against anything. Wikipedia is about facts. It is an encyclopedia. Neither your opinion nor mine matters at all about anything. --auburnpilot talk 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Having served no purpose in advancing the argument, removal of the auburnpilot post from the Nationality Listing section is warranted. Not only is it inaccurate, but its noncompliance with WP politeness guidelines is embarrassing. And given what was basically a concession with the words “little to no chance of altering the article”, the gratuitousness of the post was most unfortunate.

All obfuscation aside, the fact remains that the term “American” is ill suited as a reflection of national character (nationality) because, although it certainly describes the inhabitants of the United States, it also connotes (or should) a superset of individuals residing outside the U.S.A.

Ironically, the subtext of the opposition to the requested change pointedly authenticates its very need. Driven by a false sense of honor, the tone of both objections exposes a disdain for definitional precision unbefitting an encyclopedic endeavor, and conversely, given the definition’s third place ranking in Merriam Webster, an inordinate interest in maintaining a colloquial and derogatory connotation. This mindset can be summarized by the phrase, ugly American, and its presence here is disheartening, but on reflection, not particularly surprising given the primary article’s ability to attract apologists for the object of its subject matter and their well documented penchant for vituperation and defamation.

So after all, sound opinion does matter, and that language and its proper use plays a huge role in not only helping us get by, but in helping us get along.
--Apachegila (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time this came up. Go here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_("U.S."_or_"American")_2 and the current standard is explained. As multiple editors/bigwigs have already stated their views and its not going to happen. If you wish to persist in your one man crusade, go back to Manual of Style and complain there because even if everyone here agreed with you, anyone else who came here would be fully justified in changing it back to American... because that's concensus. Have a nice day. As a side note, proposing wikipedia wide changes on an individual article is generally a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistent with the MoS discussion from 173.88.18.30 just above, there is really a very easy fix to this, similar to what has been done at the BLPs of many others. So, I fixed it. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic Policy

The statistics listed in the "Economic Policy" section only go to 2007, but the rest of the section mentions economic events occurring in 2008. Would someone with access to this article and the relevant statitistics please correct the figures to reflect the last year of this presidency? 65.30.180.228 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll get to it later? Most of the info is reasonably updated but if you want changes you gotta be bold man! RTRimmel (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the lowest approval ratings in American history

Whenever people have tried to add the words "receiving one of the lowest approval ratings in American history." at the end of the sentence "Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term, his popularity declined sharply in his second term.", it gets erased. May I ask why it always gets erased? Isn't it a fact that he has one of the lowest approval ratings in history? If you ask me, I think it ought to be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because it looks like we are piling on. The sourced text already says that his popularity declined in his second term. What other point is there to make about it? QueenofBattle (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and it was agreed that the most neutral way to describe Bush's approval raintgs is the following:

"Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[9] his popularity declined sharply in his second term.[10][11][12][13][14]"

If we include that he had among the lowest approval ratings at the end of his presidency, it would only be fair and neutral to report that he also had the highest approval ratings of any U.S. president ever near the start of his presidency. But, as Queen said above, that would be "piling it on." And it would stray from generalizing all main points of the subject in the lead, as recommended by WP:LEAD. So we leave both of them out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No one likes this sentence, which generally makes it a decent compromise I suppose. Bush has the highest approval rating (within the margins of error of 3 other presidents and with a demonstratable bias from Gallup) Bush has several of the lowest approval rating. Bush has the highest disapproval rating. Bush has the lowest sustained approval ratings. Bush has the longest and steepest decline in approval ratings. Bush is the only 2nd term president who's approval rating never exceeded 50%. Bush's approval dropped AFTER he left office. Bah. There is a big section no his approval ratings or lack thereof. We can only put so much in the lead and I'd make the argument that disapproval ratings have been demonstratably show to be more useful than approval ratings in the context of stopping the president's agenda dead, but that's just me. RTRimmel (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about saying his approval rating reached extremes in both directions?--Loodog (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RTRimmel, that's all and good, but as you said we can only put so much in the lead, and this sentence seems to capture the gist of his approval ratings (all of his presidential approval ratings). Loodog, I think that by adding such in the lead we would be getting ourselves into WP:WEIGHT terrirtory because we can only place so much weight on his polls in the lead. It is best to stick with what we have. And I think it is pretty evident from reading both the large section at the bottom of the article and the daughter article that Bush's approval ratings saw extremes in both directions. Happyme22 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

<undent> Concensus about the prior sentence between me and Happy, IIRC, was that I wouldn't contest it but I thought it wasn't the best example because it would get edited all the time while he thought it was the best compromise and volunteered to police it if necessary. Given the constant tweaking of the sentence, I think that it is not achieving its goal in the article and perhaps more information may be necessary. Lets toss around something. "Bush's approval ratings peaked shortly after 9/11 and then began a long decline, falling below 50% after the 2004 elections and dropped to their lowest point during the economic crisis in his second term." The sources support it and its much less vague than the prior sentence. We don't include the highs and lows percentages, but the 50% mark is usually held out as a useful turning point in an academic light. RTRimmel (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug Use and Inspiration?

Why is mention of Bush's use of cocaine, as well as struggles with alcoholism, not mentioned? He inspired millions by finding God and sobriety at age 40.