Talk:George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States

Shoe throwing[edit]

The shoe throwing incident should not be under the "Assassination Attempt" section, since it was obviously not an attempt to assassinate Bush. Separate section? Karlchwe (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration[edit]

Where to begin? The entire section implies that there actually were proven irregularities that could (should?) have changed the vote in Ohio. It also implies that there really were serious questions about whether or not Bush would be president between November 2004 and January 2005. Among other things. --BaronLarf 04:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I will do what I can to make it a real article.--MONGO 07:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There actually were irregularities in the election, yes. The full extent of the irregularities are unknown, but concievable it may have changed the outcome in Ohio. In fact, this was the claim of relief in a civil case filed by the The Alliance for Democracy on behalf of a group of voters in Ohio representing the voters in Ohio who were disenfranchised. Insofar as this was a legitimate legal case, accepted by Ohio Supreme court as having sufficient merit to be tried, and insofar as the outcome of the court case, had it been settled by the deadline, could have affected the electoral votes from Ohio, to be counted on January 6th, there were "serious (and legitimate) questions" about whether or not Bush would be president, during said time period. Kevin Baas^talk 03:06, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

It isn't conceivable based on anything except some serious inability to do simple math...there never were any serious questions...no more so than in any number of other elections throughout the history of the U.S. The issue should be eliminated or toned down a lot.--MONGO 06:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can spout your opinion as much as you like MONGO, but this is an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. Here's some "simple math" for you: 260,000 > 118,000. Kevin Baas^talk 15:53, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory.--MONGO 09:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like someone may have done some not-so-nice hacks to this page? The whole opening is not that good. It doesn't talk about the second term in the opening, all it contains is some assassination attempt. Here is the opening paragraph "During a visit to the Republic of Georgia on May 10, 2005 there was an attempt to assassinate Bush by Vladimir Arutinian, whose live grenade failed to detonate after hitting a girl and landing in the large crowd 19 meters from the podium where Bush was delivering a speech."

New Content[edit]

Why don't you quitkl;kgal;mbl;semrlgmbes

Comment about comments[edit]

I'm rather shocked the discussion page isn't one of the longest in Wiki. Just two short discussion topics and no reference to things being archived. I'm still new to Wiki, maybe I'm missing something.

Overall, I'm also suprised by how good the article is, with many many brief references to events that are linked for more detail. It doesn't sound like an output of the administrations public relations team and isn't a tacky assult by passionate dislikers. Kudos for Wiki, really, on this one.

While many may have thier own opinions about the president, this article is something I would refer my kids to for a homework assignment. That's a good thing to say about it.

Bptdude 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because ALL the comments go on the discussion section of the main page. Check out the arhives there! Whew. As for the comment about it not sounding like a PR product, there's no way someone could cap the sheer editing, input, and attention that goes into an article like this. Truly a marvel. The more attention a subject/article gets, the more perfect it becomes. ~ Rollo44 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of weasel and peacock tags[edit]

I removed the {{weasel}} and {{peacock}} banners from the page. They take away from the obvious extensive work done on the page and cast doubt to its authenticity. I read through much of the page and didn't see much in the way of weasel and peacock. If they are there, then shouldn't each be commented and discussed on this discussion page, and then just edited to fix the page, instead of just complaining about the page?

I did notice that there were references to reports and sources not very specific. I would expect a specific name of a report be given that could be looked up on the official U.S. government web site http://www.firstgov.gov

Given the popularity of this topic and the historic nature, I suppose a higher standard of reference could be demanded, but the banners are trite and not in the spirit of Wiki.

Bptdude 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially at the time the banners were given, I think they may not have been much out of place if at all. I admit responsibility for any issues with my own edits, which have been numerous and extensive lately as I think this article deserves to be developed and unfortunately the article in recent months has not enjoyed expansive contributions from many Wikipedians. I spent several hours yesterday doing what I could in that time to address the problems; I think the article is significantly improved but could always use further help. For that matter, I agree that the article should make better citations and should have more activity on its talk page to discuss future changes. Overall at this point I think the removal of the banners was merited, and that this article gives a fairly comprehensive and accurate summary of Bush's second term. Nothing is perfect but I do not think it is riddled with peacock or weasel terms. Minutiaman 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be removed[edit]

I have tried to start a discussion of removing this article as well as the first term article on the George W. Bush talk page. I believe the George W. Bush article should be the one article covering his presidency. Let's discuss it there: Talk: George W. Bush-JLSWiki 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is already huge. If you take a look at it in edit view, you will see the recommendation to split it in different articles at the top. That is actually why I started this article. --The_stuart 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is most certainly not to fit the information back into the main page. The solution is to find the most appropriate and efficient way of subdividing the enormous amount of information pertaining to George W. Bush. We could have a discussion on how to better organize everything, if it's not organizationally optimized already. ~ Rollo44 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Coverup of drunken Cheney Shooting Incident[edit]

how cute that there is no mention of the lengths they went to coverup that Cheney was staggering drunk when he shot his friend as they stumbled out of the truck to shoot some birds. And that he was given a full day to sober up before being interviewed by the police. Bush and Cheney are both alcoholics, and the media covered for them for 8 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.208.129 (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061109164104/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Politics/wireStory?id=2606501 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2606501

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States. 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) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]