Talk:George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bias[change source]

This article has an extreme bias: "Many people in America, and almost everyone internationally, still do not agree with the result of that election, and blame it for the problems caused by Mr. Bush's War on Terror." not factual at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelBarryThomas (talkcontribs)

Edits on the 3rd and 2nd of Feb from 64.39.113.82 and 66.254.248.176 look a bit suspicious, can someone check the facts? Archer7 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In 2000 he lost in a popular votes to Al Gore, this is a important information Darth Kalwejt 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This article sound like it was written by a 2nd grader; some sections sound like an editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.153.186 (talk)

There is a clear extreme liberal bias still infesting this page. It shows Bush in a very negative light, and should be edited to be partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.171.235 (talk)

Bushims[change source]

The section about Bushims sounds negative and in my opinion, doesn't conform to wp:wpov. This is something that should be considered for removal. --CurranH 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make a little more neutral. --Isis§(talk) 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It should absolutely be deleted. If this article is going to be a concise, simple version of the English article, then something that gets one sentence of attention in that article doesn't deserve a header or to even be there in the Simple article. 71.11.215.216 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality[change source]

I agree that there still is a bias against Bush in this page and I am working toward making the page less biased. I personally support Bush, but I believe the criticisms of him should remain on the page. ==User:informationmonopoly

To me, this seems to be a unbiased page, and i personally do not see any anti-bush perspective. 174.96.150.71 (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not simple[change source]

There is no way that this is simple enough, even using the longer list of simple english words. FinalWish 15:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Source[change source]

Here is a source for the George W. Bush article: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html BirdsArmy (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War - September 11 attacks[change source]

This article mentions the September 11 attacks in the section about the Iraq War. Iraq was not involved in the September 11 attacks. Please move the September 11 attacks to its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acaudel (talkcontribs)

Warning: Default sort key "Bush, George W." overrides earlier default sort key "George W. Bush"., and when likely it will be unprotected for editing, probably not for a long time due to vandalism.[change source]

Warning: Default sort key "Bush, George W." overrides earlier default sort key "George W. Bush". this message is at the bottom of the article. Anyone maybe could look into fixing this, it just doesn't seem to be correct at all. Thank you. If, you cannot it's fine just someday someone might get around to fixing it. --TheSneakyRaccoon (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bush's second term[change source]

...If a recession is bound to happen, why explain it by (a bad something or other) a recession from happening. """FROM""" is the key word, the possibility is how it happened, that was the operational effort of the "presidency". The President works for the presidency. We have a presidency what the Chief of Staff leaves behind is what we wanted him to operate. Be it a challenge or dedicated acknowledgement it's still the presidency.D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)