Talk:George W. Bush#"Validity"

@Drdpw nothing wrong with my edit. explain. everything I put was factual DisneyGuy744 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:There have been multiple discussions over the years about what should be stated in the lead about WMDs and casualties in the Iraq War. So, to open a discussion, you propose changing a sentence, and adding a sentence to the lead section:

1. He also ordered the 2003 invasion of Iraq]] to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime {{teal|and lied}} that the regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had ties with al-Qaeda.
2. {{teal|The war in Iraq led to an estimated 150,000 to over a million deaths, including more than 100,000 civilians.}}

:–Drdpw (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yes that's my edit. He lied. He didn't "have the false belief" since there no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destructions. Not biased its just factual information DisneyGuy744 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Lol what did you do to the first paragraph LMAO DisneyGuy744 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Please use more proper language. Wikipedia and its talk pages are not your typical social media platforms or forums. LMAO is not an appropriate response when you disagree with someone here. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::No it's just crazy what he did with the first paragraph. Trump before the 2024 presidential election was 2 sentences or less on his first paragraph. Crazy how there's no limit. Can I copy and paste the whole article and put it in one paragraph HAHAHA DisneyGuy744 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::The assertion that Bush "lied" is obviously not WP:V, since it is a claim about his mental state. Equally, the assertion that he had a "false belief" is not WP:V either. There is no way to know what Bush believed. I would suggest instead writing that Bush made "false claims", to the extent there is a reliable source for this. Best, Cfrhansen (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:It is not "crazy", you disagree. And I disagree with you too. So there are two people who do not consider your edits helpful. There is no consensus. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::well why do you disagree. And it is "crazy". The first paragraph doesn't need to be as long as the Bible, I mean it is with some athletes like Christiano Ronaldo, but that's because the introduction to his career is long, with bush he worked in an oil factory, flew planes, became president of the United States etc. I have a feeling in less than a week other editors will go "wtf" too. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I asked you before to you use more formal language. You use an WP:UNCIVIL tone. Likewise, there is no need for hyperbole or an unnecessary and incorrect comparison between the Bible (KJV: 783,137 words, you removed 124 words or so, including piped links). The lead is the summation of the article. There is no deadline. Wait a week. See if other editors agree. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I put quotation marks around wtf for a reason. I was quoting what other editors might say or think. And with the "this paragraph seems longer than the Bible" comment, that was obviously an exaggeration like you just said. Calm down. Stop taking everything so seriously. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am calm. Start taking things more seriously please. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the leads state: "Bush initially left office as one of the most unpopular U.S. presidents, but public opinion of him has improved since then." The cited article, Public image of George W. Bush, does not mention his image being "improved since then" and has far more criticism than praise. The article is filled up with criticism of his foreign policies, such as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The claim that his reputation has improved since presidency is baseless and should be removed. Al-Waqīmī (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking the title of the baseball team owned by Bush, in the second paragraph, should read 'The Texas Rangers'?2602:FE43:0:5401:11DB:6324:883C:FF2D (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

He is Czech on his mother’s side as well [https://mzv.gov.cz/washington/en/culture_events/cz_us_community/history_of_czech_in_usa/the_moravian_brethren_heritage_of_the.html] “ Ethnicity: English, some German, small amounts of Scottish, Scots-Irish/Northern Irish, Welsh, Irish, French, Dutch, Swedish, and Belgian [Flemish], and 1/256th Moravian” [https://ethnicelebs.com/george-w-bush] 2603:6011:A600:46:C01B:5D82:E92:B5B4 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting, but not very important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Rather trivial for this article in and of itself. Ancestral background of presidents of the United States is the place where that sort of information is chronicled. Drdpw (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe the opening description of Bush's military service should include a mention of the George W. Bush military service controversy.

Specifically, I would suggest: "From 1968 to 1974, during the Vietnam War, Bush served in the Air National Guard, though he never deployed to Vietnam and his service was a source of later controversy."

This controversy was significant enough to have its own page, the controversy is arguably more significant than the service itself (I note that there is no page for, e.g., "Military career of George W. Bush"), and it's worth mentioning at the outset. Mosi Nuru (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752296470}}

EDITED BY OP TO REMOVE RfC

On June 6, I made a fairly extensive set of edits intended to make the opening section more neutral, specific, and encyclopedic in tone. These were mass reverted by another user. After taking it to the user's talk page, we couldn't come to an agreement. To avoid an edit war, I'd request that other users weigh in.

My edits, and the reversions, can both be seen here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=1294337508

The edits cover a wide range of issues rather than a single theme, but some of the areas that I think it is most important to undo the revert include:

•Giving specific years of Bush's military service instead of vaguely saying "his twenties" and avoiding weird language like "Bush flew warplanes" as opposed to "Bush served in the Air National Guard." "From 1968 to 1974, during the Vietnam War, Bush served in the Air National Guard, though he never deployed to Vietnam." instead of "Bush flew warplanes in the Texas Air National Guard in his twenties."

•Using clear, specific language like "two major pieces of tax legislation, commonly referred to as the 'Bush tax cuts'" instead of "a major tax-cut program."

•Providing more detail on the 2006 election, as in "Bush's declining public approval contributed to the outcome of the 2006 United States elections, a wave election where the opposing Democratic Party won majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate" as opposed to "Amid his unpopularity, the Democrats regained control of Congress in the 2006 elections."

My preferred solution is to undo the revert and return to "Revision as of 02:37, 7 June 2025"

Mosi Nuru (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wait, uh. An RFC is rather acutely premature here. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, some talk page discussion here should've been engaged in before one was considered at bare minimum—and this really didn't seem to me like an RFC-type discussion regardless, given it's two off-the-cuff drafts of the lead section being compared.

:I really recommend you close this for now and wait for other people watching this page to chime in with their input. Remsense 🌈 论 05:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::An attempt to discuss the matter with the involved parties occurred here, and failed to reach consensus:

::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Remsense#George_W._Bush_revision_history

::However, I will remove the RfC tag for now and see if a local consensus can be reached without it. Mosi Nuru (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There's rarely a consensus to be had between only two editors? Dozens of editors watch this article! You made one bold edit, which I mostly disagreed with. That's generally the point where an ordinary talk page discussion ensues—not an RfC, which is contemplated in certain situations including when everyone actively watching an article has had their say and consensus has still to emerge. Again, WP:RFCBEFORE tells you this. Remsense 🌈 论 05:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{strikethrough|I have honored your request and removed the RfC, continuing to argue that issue is argumentative. Mosi Nuru (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:::Thank you, I appreciate you continuing to work with me here. Remsense 🌈 论 05:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You're welcome, and I appreciate this reply. Mosi Nuru (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Bush_(2000)&redirect=no George Bush (2000)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 14#George Bush (2000)}} until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)