Talk:Presidency of George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Presidency of George W. Bush article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] PNAC

Why is there no mention of PNAC members in the Bush Administration? This is a crucial issue and yet no mention.

Check.~~ Michael J Swassing 04:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite.

[edit] Palast

Greg Palast claims both the 2000 and 2004 elections were 'stolen' and that the neocons have plans to 'swipe' things again in 2008. This should at least be mentioned. Palast is a journalist for the BBC, the NY Times, and the Guardian Observer. This should at least be mentioned in the interest of fairness. As this is common knowledge and is conspicuous in its absence and as there is no mention whatsoever of the controversy of Ohio there is no alternative but to regard this article as biased.

[edit] Chiefs of staff

Should say more about deputy chiefs of staff... we all know Karl Rove has lots of sway over government policy, and Joe Hagen is also tremendously powerful per per interview in yesterday's Fresh Air with Terry Gross --66.166.234.138 23:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a little biased against the Bush Administration.

[edit] I agree first paragraph should be revised

We all have opinions, but we must maintain neutrality when authoring a bio. The first paragraph should be dates and info about when and where, not about the only democrat in his cabinet.

[edit] We need a list of those who have resigned from the administration

That's what we need. --I've begun on a partial list. I need validation and additional resources to complete it. I doubt I'll return to resume my work on the section. I also made a controvercy subsection that I hope people will improve upon in a non-partisan manner ;) (User:Rekutyn)

I have completed the List of Resigned Cabinet Members. Also, the paragraph regarding Norman Mineta should probably be re-worded now that he has resigned. --TommyBoy 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a rationale for the order of this list? Or for that matter, the order of the Cabinet members table? I think the list of resignations could be more useful if it was ordered in chronological order. Schi 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Cino

Should we add Maria Cino, the acting Secretary of Transportation, on the "Cabinet" chart? I think it's useful information and should be noted somewhere in the article. Schi 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumsfeld

The page should be updated to mention Rumsfeld's resignation (about time!). On a side note, it's odd that nearly EVERYONE got replaced in 2005... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.126.146 (talk • contribs) 01:48, November 16, 2006 (UTC).

It is alluded to in the intro, in discussion of Robert Gates, but I've also added a footnote to Rumsfeld's name in the Cabinet chart that explains his resignation. Schi 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Jhamilton2087 added a neutrality disputed tag to the article[1] but did not discuss rationale. What's the dispute, and how can we fix it? Schi 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. If JHamilton2087 can't explain why the tag was added, it's not up to the rest of us to try to guess. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

Critics allege, however, that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes made by loyal subordinates, and that Bush has surrounded himself with "yes men".

Though there are sources, could one change this so that it doesn't use "Some say" statements? --Soliloquial 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article says very little

At the risk of stating the obvious, don't we desparatly need to creat the following articles with links thereto from this page: 1. Foreign policy of Bush Administration (to match the domestic policy article linked to at the bottom. 2. Criticisms of the Bush Administration. --NYCJosh 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the pages for the Reagan Administration, I think it is a mistake to separate an article discribing the history of the administration from an article about criticism of policies. The result is two separate articles that are both biased instead of one with balance. ~~ Michael J Swassing 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

This entire subject is cut and pasted from Yahoo! Answers. Is that what we want? Hughey 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the sub-topic heading of "Controversy," I have tried to verify your charge of plagiarism, and have not been able to verify that. Can you be more specific about exactly where you have found identical wording, and whether the contribution on this article came before or after the posting on Yahoo! Answers? I don't think we would want to remove well referenced original contributions that have since become the source of plagiarism to another site. ~~ Michael J Swassing 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is a link to a self-described progressive think tank, the third way, a suitable reference? They are non-partisan but clearly biased toward a certain viewpoint. The CDC and Concerned Scientists groups are ostensibly apolitical, I don't think Third Way could be considered an objective source. Jbmcb (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environment

This article needs an environmental section about how the Bush Administration is handling the issues on America's environment. Phantomwolf13 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I came across this site that has an incredibly detailed amount of information about Bush's environmental actions from 2001-2005. I want to start picking some of it apart, but it seems like a bit much for one person. Any takers on helping? Fallicarus 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just put a general environmental section here, but I will check out your link, too. Phantomwolf13 19:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs an environment section -- which should be called "Environmental record," in order to be consistent across the encyclopedia.Benzocane 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is factual accuracy disputed?

We currently have a factual accuracy dispute banner over the article. To me, this article appears to be well sourced, and I see no major dispute on this talk page about any of the claims in this article. It seems like this banner should be changed to a neutrality or controversial one instead, which I believe would better describe the situation. Any comments before moving ahead? Bradkoch2007 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea either. It doesn't seem any type of tag is needed at all, because the talk page already states it's a controversial subject. And anything would have to be discussed on the page. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)