Talk:Public image of George W. Bush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

graph needs update[edit]

new poll shows 28% approval Southleft 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has gotten worse: the last one I heard (via MSNBC) was 26%. Any lower and he's in Nixon territory...

Also upon the five-yr anniversary of the war in iraq, here's a new CNN.com story about a "new low" in approval ratings. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forked and then ignored[edit]

Ah, so right after I move stuff back into here, I discover that the reason this has barely been touched in two weeks is because it was all copied back into George_W._Bush#Criticism_and_public_perception. I don't know what to do now other than deleting most of the intro (which was never sectioned to begin with) from this article and turning it into an article solely on polling data. Any objections?--Kchase T 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Criticism on George W. Bush[edit]

Both articles should be merged in one. There's really no point in having them separated since they have practically the same content. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have been deliberately split in the past, as people thought the two concepts where to different which resulted in an incoherent article. I suggest we leave it like this, both articles are reasonably sized and well sourced and serve a purpose on their own. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Both articles serve a separate purpose as daughter articles of George W. Bush. - auburnpilot talk 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Approval Rating Graph[edit]

  • President Bush's approval rating from April 2001 to June 2007. Data are from ABCNews Poll.
    President Bush's approval rating from April 2001 to June 2007. Data are from ABCNews Poll.
  • President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Data are from Newsweek Poll.
    President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Data are from Newsweek Poll.
  • President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Data are from Gallup Poll.
    President Bush's approval rating from February 2001 to July 2007. Data are from Gallup Poll.

I made those graphs. You can add them to the main article if you want.--Jean-Francois Landry 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some data to the Newsweek poll and here are the sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1040a3PoliticsandtheWar.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623564/site/newsweek/
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1723&pg=2
--Jean-Francois Landry 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "ApprovalRatingsOverTime" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Bush|title=Job Performance Ratings for President Bush|publisher=Roper Center}}
    • {{cite web | url = http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Bush | title = Job Performance Ratings for President Bush | accessdate = 2006-09-09 | author = Roper Center | year = 2006 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New data since the election?[edit]

Hello. Are there any data on his approval now that he's a lame duck? We only seem to go up to August 2008. 66.75.11.192 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's final data over in United States Presidential approval rating —EqualRights (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly perception[edit]

This article deals mostly with public perception in general. Should it also include scholarly perception? Some information about this can be found in the presidential rankings page. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of OR in this article[edit]

This article has lots of OR in the weight it places on criticisms, what it chooses to report ect. As a matter of fact, I think the article's title makes it impossible to not do OR of some type. After all, who is authoritative for the public's perception? What is a reliable source for what the public believes? Who is to determine how much coverage of a given issue is appropriate and how much is wp:undue? Consider the section "December 2005 Rasmussen poll on Iraq" Why include that specific poll? Why not include one about, say, treatment of detainees or hurricane Katrina? Without a reliable third party source to cite, its OR either way. Bonewah (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, im adding the OR tag to this article. I really dont see how the OR problems can be solved without an authoritative source on the public's perception, and I cant imagine what that source would be. Bonewah (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, you mean like a poll?--Loodog (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that a polling company is really a reliable source on the public's perception of GWB generally, although they might be on some specifics. Again, what questions are asked is the important part of why a poll isnt RS for the public's attitude generally. Maybe if we had some poll that asked "what do you think is important to this country" type of thing, but then what? Follow up with more polling? Sounds like OR to me. Bonewah (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to write something like, "GWB became unpopular towards the end of his second term" or "Most (x%) of Americans dislike Bush's cowbow image", and there's a poll that says so, you're saying that a polling company is somehow an inappropriate source?--Loodog (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No im saying that the choice of questions is inappropriate. Why "Most (x%) of Americans dislike Bush's cowbow image", as opposed to "most (x%) of Americans dislike Bush's handling of the Iraq war"? Polls are fine for the specific, but dont help us with the question "what should be included or excluded in this article. Consider this, the article has a subsection for a 2005 poll on Iraq, a 2006 poll on impeachment, and a 2008 poll on being the worst President in U.S. history. Why those polls as opposed to, say, a poll on his handling of the war on terror, or the economy, or Katrina or whatever else? Thats a question that i dont believe can be answered by a poll. Bonewah (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's a sentiment I can understand, but unfortunately that is the basis for every wikipedia article: what to include and what not to. If that were OR, all of wikipedia would be OR. Electing to put the population of New York City in the New York City article would be OR.

Wikipedia policy on original research doesn't refer to the choice of sourced content to be included; it only imposes that you're not WP:MAKINGSHITUP based on personal experience. If a given question about public opinion is neutral point of view lies at the discretion of the users.--Loodog (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a significant degree of editorial judgement and common sense involved in article writing, but original research (specifically WP:SYN) limits what you can do with reliable sources. Consider this line from the synthesis subsection "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." thats the problem i have with this article. While a poll might be RS for some specific claim, there is no reliable source for what the public believes is important generally about GWB. Bonewah (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. But what conclusions do you believe this article has synthesized that aren't directly supported by the sources cited? The vast majority of this article is just summarizing simple approval polls.--Loodog (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just to cite one example, we have a whole subsection on Bush's perceived intellectual capacity but nothing on, say, Extraordinary Rendition. But, again, I could exchange rendition with Bush's reaction to 9/11 or views on the Kyoto Protocol and be just as arbitrary. Bonewah (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a number of sources showing Bush's intellectual capacity to be a notable part of his image, and I believe that it is, even if I personally think he's not as dumb as people believe.
As for Extraordinary Rendition, I think you misinterpret the scope of this article. This article isn't meant to be opinions of individual Bush administration policies. Comment on Extraordinary Rendition would be a policy-based, not personality-based response. That'd be public perception of Bush Administration policies. The closest you could get to something like ER in opinions of Bush as a person would be a broad question of whether he was a guy who made the right calls on fighting terrorism, which is something covered in polling.--Loodog (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if the article is supposed to be about public perceptions of bush personally, the underlying problem doesnt change, who or what is a reliable source for what the public thinks of GWB personally? I hasten to add that if this article is supposed to be personality-based as opposed to policy-based, then a number of things will have to be removed (anything about Iraq or impeachment for starters). Bonewah (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article's topic is valid for WP, and I think polls are valid if you use them correctly, and I don't think this article is guilty of OR. I do think, however, that the article is skewed in a couple of places. For example, I suspect the impeachment polls are cherry-picked to present the high watermarks of the pro-impeachment view. I'd rather see impeachment polls across several years, to see what the data range is. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article move undone[edit]

Without discussion, this article got moved to Public image of George W. Bush, with the reason "Per consistency with other articles on American politicians". First, a move like this requires discussion ahead of time. Second, each of these articles is somewhat different in scope and intent, and in many cases the previous name was chosen with some thought. I have undone this move, since this article is largely poll-driven and "perception" thus better conveys what the article is about than "image". I've undone another one of the renamings as well, because it too compromised an accurate description of the article's content. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR specifics[edit]

I realize that the above OR discussion is a bit high level to be practical for this article, so im making this section to discuss specifics of this article and what needs to be removed. I will be removing some material that i feel is OR for purposes of wp:BRD. Feel free to readd anything you feel was removed in error, and discuss here.

From the 'Background' section:

At the beginning of his first term, Bush was regarded by some as lacking political legitimacy due to his narrow victory in Florida and the attendant controversy surrounding his electoral college victory, which included accusations of vote suppression and tampering. Bush has also been accused of squandering opportunities for uniting Americans across party lines. While routinely criticized by Democrats, Bush has also divided legitimate Republicans, American Hollywood celebrities, and sports and media personalities, many of whom have engaged in heated criticism of Bush.

All of that strikes me as OR and is, at a minimum, unsourced. Bonewah (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, this article is about what people think about GWB personally, as opposed to his policies, and, because of that, i feel that this line should be removed "A constant point of criticism has been the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, including both its invasion and continued American presence. A poll taken in mid September 2006 indicated that 48 percent of Americans believed the war with Iraq has made the U.S. less safe, while 41 percent believed the war has made the U.S. safer from terrorism.[12] " as it is about the Iraq war (a consequence of GWB's policies) rather than him personally. Bonewah (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Approval rating certainly belongs in this article. The prominent reasons for that approval rating are certainly relevant. What's NOT notable is public opinion of every Bush Administration policy. E.g. public opinion about his increase in funding to the NSF is not a notable aspect of public perception of him.--Loodog (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are his policies on Iraq any more notable than his policies on the NSF? Bonewah (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not. Public opinion of them is.--Loodog (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism merge[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:SNOW merge, as there is a near-unanimous consent to merge. The only person to oppose is most-likely being disruptive. Sceptre (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I'm proposing this merge because I think that the "criticism" merge provides an undue weight problem regarding Bush. Yes, he was widely criticised. But he still holds the record for highest approval rating, and in most polls, he's seen as a below-average-but-still-not-the-worst president. The "criticism" article doesn't go about offering the opposite side to the criticism, so we have NPOV problems there. I suggest we reogranise this article to order it by time, so we can discuss how his perception rose after 9/11, and bottomed out near the end of his second term. Sceptre (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine with me, a chronological breakdown makes more sense than current, semi-rambling style we have. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge - What exactly is Criticism besides the public perception of one's actions? Grsz11 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge the articles are synonymous. An article solely based on criticism is inherently biased. -Drdisque (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge I guess i should make that clear. Bonewah (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge I concur with Drdisque's assessment that this article by its nature of being a mirror of criticisms violates NPOV. Allventon (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse mergeI wasn't even aware this article existed, but this article seems to cover the exact same ground as a "Criticism of" article and allows for the more positive aspects of the public's perception of Bush to be explored. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge--Loodog (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge - makes sense to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge content violated BLP and its volume would be UNDUE. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your objection. Didn't you nominate a group of Criticism articles for deletion, yet are simultaneously campaigning for Criticsm of Barack Obama to be un-deleted? Grsz11 22:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use Occam's razor. Says he's probably making a WP:POINT. Sceptre (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the proposal is being uncontested (save from a disruptive troll), I'm starting moving the small pieces of the criticism article to this article. I'll leave the big section for last. Sceptre (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Sceptre calls me a "a disruptive troll," well this article is still UNDUE to be placed into another article. Or, just maybe, it could be placed in the Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 article. Just some thoughts from Sceptre's "disruptive troll." Still vote to Oppose merge. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyone make an effort to stay on topic please, this article is not about Barack Obama. Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Country image is based on editorials[edit]

The whole section 'Country image' is based on editorials rather than opinion polls or some other metric of the public's perception. I am going to remove it as irrelevant, if anyone wants to restore it, be sure to talk about it here. Bonewah (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the BBC article.--Loodog (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i did, what was i supposed to find there? Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public perception -> Public image[edit]

I've boldly renamed the article Public image of George W. Bush instead of Public perception of George W. Bush. The name now meshes with Public image of Barack Obama, which is a far more neutral and concrete topic than the public's perception of someone. If there are any serious objections, I will be happy to revert the rename and open it up for wider debate. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally im in favor of the new name, but you should know that this exact move was done and undone about 2 weeks ago (see the section of this discussion labeled 'Article move undone' 3 sections above). Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Now we've got the criticism article merged in, we have significant NPOV problems; this is to be expected, seeing as the criticism article was largely negative. How should we go about fixing them? Sceptre (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say changing or removing some of the descriptors would be a good start. There are too many weasel words here. This is a shining example: "In Islamic countries, opinion of Bush is even less favorable. In Islamic countries, Bush's unfavorable ratings are particularly high, often over 90%.[130] In Jordan, for example, Bush’s favorable rating is only nine percent". I think "even", "particularly", "often", and "only" could be removed and still impart the same information while sounding more neutral. Further, when there is some positive data reported about poll numbers, popularity, etc. weasel words are seemingly used to diminish the impact of the information. For example: "Bush enjoys somewhat more favorable views among the populations of some allied states, though they are usually a minority of the countries polled". "Somewhat" should be removed and the entire last clause should be removed or reworded unless someone can find better inline citations. Wperdue (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
I think at this point (until some years down the road if a "legacy" section or some kind of major shift in opinion takes place a la Truman), the article will always lean negative. Kind of the breaks of the game. However, I would start by doing a major copyedit as suggested by Wperdue to try and eliminate weasel words and nail down any remaining areas that need references. Then, in my opinion, more specifically, the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys section should be pared down immensely. For an article on Bush's general image, this just isn't a major factor. Seems like undue weight. I think the step of merging is a step in the right direction for Wikipedia. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give the article a copyedit soon. Happyme22 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We should treat this as a small on-going project to give a neutral outlook of Bush's image. Re Ali'i: yes, I know it'll be slightly negative. That's what a duly weighted article will be: slightly negative towards Bush, because of his reputation. But at the same time, we must also recognise his sky-high approval ratings in the first three years of his presidency. Also, I don't think we should copyedit the prose first. Basically, what I think we should do is:
  1. Merge.  Done
  2. Skim the irrelevant parts off (one-man opinions and synthesis could go, but the general gist—for example, the disaster that was Katrina—kept in).
  3. Possibly re-organise to be sequential, rather than by department/category.
  4. Copy-edit the prose.
  5. Possibly, once we've stabilised the article and it doesn't have that many problems (i.e., in several months time), get it up for GA. Sceptre (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I call all that copyediting the article as a whole, so perhaps my terminology is off. Maybe cleaning it up is a better phrase? In any case, those are what I intend to do over the upcoming days. Happyme22 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, maybe I'm wrong; I tend to see copyediting as improving the prose, but not necessarily the content. Sceptre (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout[edit]

Now that the merge is complete, this seems like a good time to ask what layout we would prefer, one based on time or events? My preference is one based on time, I.E. start at 2000 and end at 2009 with all content being organized by when it occurred. The other option would be to group information based on major events or categories of events, I.E. domestic vs. foreign, Iraq war related, etc. Again, sequentially is my choice because it lessens the possibility of undue weight through choice of ordering. Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... I was just reading over the article and clicked over to the talk page to ask the same question. At this point, I think the opposite would be better. I think an article grouped by categories would be better. My thinking is that if we try and order it strictly chronologically, we may run into a simple ticky-tack list of criticisms with no coherent theme. "This happened, and Bush was viewed as..., then this happened, and Bush was viewed as..., then that happened, and Bush was viewed as... etc." If we try and group things of similar nature, it makes more sense to me. Within each group, it probably makes sense to order it chronologically, so it would be more like, "Domestic policy: Bush's general image on domestic stuff; First term: Bush's image on domestic issues that happened during 2001-2004; Second term: Bush's image on domestic issues that happened during 2005-2009." Then onto foreign policy, etc. Within each major topic, smaller topics such as the war in Iraq and Katrina could have their own sections.
Potential pros: keeps major themes together (for instance how he was viewed regarding Iraq wouldn't have to be peppered randomly throughout the article), especially on issues where his image changed over time. Potential cons: issues that touch on both foreign and domestic, other items like that. I'm not 100% sold on this layout, so I can be swayed, but for now, I think it makes the most sense. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer it to be mostly organised by time, with possibly the following sections:
  1. Pre-election
  2. Florida
  3. First term
  1. 9/11
  2. Iraq
  1. Second term
  1. Katrina
  2. Subprime mortgage crisis
  1. Post-presidency
Foreign perceptions?
Personality?
Stuff which influenced his image, but not to the point where it needs a sub-section, could be dealt with as paragraphs before the "big two" issues in each term. I'm ambivalent on how we deal with the Iraq occupation (as opposed to the invasion). Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism V.S. Public Image[edit]

Why was the Criticism article merged with this one? If this is the new standard ,then no one will mind if I go to the articles on Presidents of other countries and change the criticism section to "Public Image of person x" ? World Views (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find your answer by reading the earlier discussions on this talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I now know the rationale. World Views (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster reference[edit]

The sentence stating "Perhaps his most famous nonstandard pronunciation is that of "nucular" instead of "nuclear", although he is not the only American president to have done this, and Merriam-Webster Online considers this an acceptable, alternative pronunciation." is misleading. Granted, Merriam-Webster does list the "nucular" pronunciation, but it adds a ÷ symbol to indicate that it is a nonstandard pronunciation. I think the sentence should be edited to read, "...this, and Merriam-Webster lists this as a variant but nonstandard pronunciation of the term," which is more correct and reflective of the source. danielkueh (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Public image of George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Public image of George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public image of George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Public image of George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Public image of George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Public image of George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you Mr president from my heart ❤ I'm a Iraqi woman just wanted to say to the world you Mr. President George Bush saved us from the criminal saddam Thank you my hero ❤ Aseelalb (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Eric Blumrich" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eric Blumrich and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 22#Eric Blumrich until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link Ref 124[edit]

The reference link n.124 : "Krauthammer, Charles (December 5, 2003). "The Delusional Dean". The Washington Post." is dead, brings to a Washington Post 404.

I needed to read this source but it's gone. I eventually found it but don't know how to modify references in code so I'll let one of you veterans finish the job, thanks :)

Working link for ref 124 is : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/12/05/the-delusional-dean/cbc80426-08ee-40fd-97e5-19da55fdc821/

Edit : came back to it much later with more experience and replaced it with the source that works =D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetrarque (talk • contribs) 23:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Tetrarque (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

possible new text re iraq decisions[edit]

would like to add the text below, if that's ok.

"One columnist wrote: "George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the worst foreign-policy decision ever made by an American president. Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11, there was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq and no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was the most secular state in the Middle East, and there was no Islamic State — the terrorist threat we face today. " George W. Bush was not a good president. As a former president, he’s been exemplary. Bush has provided a model for anyone leaving the Oval Office. By Jean Edward Smith, July 26, 2016, Washington Post.

Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i could seek multiple sources to construct the same overview. however this is a column in a major newspaper, which sought a broad over-arching view that was actually positive about george bush, as regards his role in post-presidency. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

here are some more possible sources:

--Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not in love with random opinions, even when they are from major newspapers or somewhat famous columnists. Having said that, 'public image of..' articles tend to be just piles of random opinions anyway, so this one is no worse than anything else. Maybe if you would, try to summarize the sources you have provided in your own words, rather than just a quote? Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi. that sounds fine. will do so soon. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_image_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=1198611013"