Talk:George H. W. Bush/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Edits

Both of the recent edits I made to this article were reverted by Happyme22, with an edit summary that didn't give, at least for me, a satisfactory explanation why either of the edits would not be an improvement to the article.

As regards bunching, why is this an acceptable layout for the article when we have a perfectly good, standardised fix?

As regards the McCain endorsement, how do the specific words he used add to the article? "It is history" is a pretty feeble argument. Consider a counterexample: as you know, GHWB recently had an aircraft carrier commissioned in his name. A far more significant event in the context of Bush's biography. At the commissioning, he said "I wish I was sitting right out there with you, ready to start the adventures of my naval aviation career all over." Does that go into the article? No. This is a long article, covering a long and eventful life, and we really ought to be making it suitably concise.

Either Happyme22 or anyone else is invited to provide their thoughts on these changes, which I think should be made but not through the medium of edit-warring. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the McCain quote does not belong in the article. It's relevance is temporary at best. Read on its own, it sounds like a paragraph more likely foundin McCain's article than here. I'm sure GWHB has endorsed other people for other offices in other elections. I fail to see why this one stands out. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Including the endorsement itself I can understand, since it's of interest in the context of his post-presidential career. Presidential endorsements are influential on quite a high public level, and this only the second opportunity he's had post-office to endorse somebody not his son. The specifics of what it was that was so nice about what he said about McCain is not so relevant as its potential or intended influence - so it's a stretch on the rules on original research to imply significance by quoting it. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What was the quote? I can't find it. Without being able to see the quote, I agree with your comment about endorsements of ex-Presidents. They are big news. Also, as described above, I don't understand how the only specific mention of the Iran Contra affair in this piece is Bush calling Cap Weinberger a "true American patriot." This omits that Bush himself was implicated by the Special Prosecutor with the strong suggestion that Bush pardoned Cap to cover save himself, not because Cap was "a true American patriot." Same goes for the only mention of the infamous Willie Horton affair - the piece says it contributed to Dukakis appearance as "soft on crime." This omits that the Horton ad has been widely criticized as race baiting - including in the Washington Post - and that Bush's own top campaign manager, Atwater, later apologized for it. This piece is not balanced in these areas. I am not saying the current content has to be removed, only that it needs to be balanced. Unfortunately I do not have the power to make corrections, and if I did I have the feeling I would be in an edit war. I am new to editing in Wikipedia. Is there anything that can be done, or does the piece simply have to remain unbalanced? Initially someone responded to my comments above in a constructive manner which caused me to narrow them to these two comments, but now I have been ignored. Thank you very much to you or anyone who chooses to respond. Likesausages (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1993 Assassination attempt

There is a (sourced) mention of an assassination attempt over at the Warren Christopher article, but no mention of it in this article. Perhaps it would be good to add this to this article as well? Rpvdk (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockefeller error

A person named Rockefeller is mentioned in the China Envoy section. No first name, and it should be hyperlinked to this person's full entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.49 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to factor out the "Presidency"?

Currently Presidency of George H. W. Bush is a redirect back to this page. I think it would help to factor out the "Presidency" part of this article to conform to the style of other contemporary Presidents.--Spellage (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the #make presidency a separate article discussion thread above. Happyme22 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Youngest pilot in US Navy

I replaced the line in the lead saying Bush was the youngest pilot in US history with the statement that he was the youngest pilot in the navy at the time.

I added a reference for it, but I don't know that it's even necessary for the new, narrower statement? The reference is already used several times in other areas of the article.

FireWorks (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick Thornburgh

Why is there an asterisk next to Dick Thornburgh's name in the cabinet list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontoguru (talk • contribs) 06:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I was going to bring this up too and I'm glad someone did! My assumption is because Dick Thornburgh had served in the Reagan Cabinet, and thus was a holdover in the Bush Administration. But if that is the case, then Treasury Secretary Brady should also have an asterisk. Also, I searched the page and there is no explanation of the asterisk, plus the page is locked (understandably). Can somebody remedy this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.113.226 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bush's residence during the summer in Maine

Please mention that during the summer, George H. W. Bush stays at the Bush Compound in Maine during the summer, with his wife Barbara Bush. Add that to his page article. Thank you.

Bush as the CIA director

This page says that Bush was the director of the CIA for 355 days from january 20, 1976-January 30, 1977. However, that would be 356 days. Furthermore 1976 was a leap year, so it would actually be 357 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.250.139 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up! Happyme22 (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that there is no mention of his well-documented CIA connections or his relationship with the House of Saud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.140.246 (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

* After Dick Thornburgh, Please Fix

This was brought up earlier but not addressed yet. In the cabinet section, Dick Thornburgh has a * next to his name, but at the bottom of the box, no explanation is given as to why. I surmised that possibly it is because he was a holdover from the Reagan Administration. But if that's the case, Brady would need one too, since he was also a Reagan Cabinet member retained by Bush. Regardless, the box should still at the bottom tell the reader that's the case. So two options really. Can someone with the powers to do so either delete the *, or make an explanation for the *, and also add a * next to Secretary Brady too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.113.226 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it. This is consistent with the cabinet infobox in articles on other Presidents (ex Truman) who kept one or more of the predecessor's cabinet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryJeff (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

George Bush Family

Please note that GHWB is the son of Senator Prescott Bush and Dorothy Walker. There are Wikipedia articles on both of these people.

Please add Jeb Bush to his childrens list. He is not on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.149.250 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

His name is included in the "Marriage and college years" section. Happyme22 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Prescott Bush was a senator from Connecticut, not Massachusetts, as the page claims. This error should be fixed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.25.136 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

George Bush Jumping off the Plane

I cannot find the area where he jumps off the plane and decides to do it again when he's 90. I believe there is a source in Fox 5 News. Jeremjay24 (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In the subject line under "Recent Activities" regarding Bush's visit to the George H.W. Bush, the line: "In an amazing turn of events, the Associated Press completely missed the story" is blatant editorializing.

The major news services do not assign reporters to monitor the day-to-day activities of ex-presidents. This becomes more true as the term of the ex-POTUS recedes in time. As a rule, they will only be aware of appearances by the ex-presidents if an announcement is made in advance by either the ex-POTUS or the organization hosting the visit (in this case, the U.S. Navy).

The visit of an ex-president, out of office 16 years, to a naval vessel not currently involved in active operations, is not exactly huge news. At best it would be a minor feature story. The fact it was not picked up by the AP would hardly qualify as "amazing."

JStarStar (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Activities

The last sentence in the recent activities section which says, "in an amazing turn of events, the Associated Press completely missed the story" is editorial and untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastcoastj (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy's Funeral

I'm not sure why exactly, but making a minor edit pointing out that George Bush was absent at Ted Kennedy's funeral seems to have started an edit war. I had no idea such a minor comment would be offensive to people, particularly since I have sources to back it up and have made the proper citations. In keeping with Wiki guidelines, lets stop this edit war, and discuss whatever disagreements you may have with this edit Rain City Blues (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rain City Blues, you're the one who's edit warring, I'm afraid. You've been reverted by three different editors and have reinstated the edit yourself three times in the last 24 hours. The reason the text is being removed is not because it's 'offensive' but because it's not notable or relevant to this article. Discussion is a good idea, but please remember the BRD cycle: with few exceptions, if a change is disputed it should stay out of the article until the editors involved come to an agreement on the talk page. Why do you feel this one event is important enough in the subject's life that it requires mention in his article? Do you feel the decision not to attend tells us something about the subject? -- Vary (Talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Before you start throwing accusations and warnings at me, lets review the edit itself-making ad hominem attacks isn't going to strengthen your argument, it will merely make it look like you are abusing your power as an admin.
Now, the edit itself is relevant-this is probably the single most talked about event int he news as of late. His absence is notable, since he is the only living ex-president who did not attend. That's certainly more notable than his dedicating an aircracft carrier.
I intend to revert this edit, in hopes of attracting the attention of an admin that is willing to look at the issue itself, and not throw accusations around quite so liberally. Perhaps, if you achieve a level of civility where you can do this, we can have a rational discussion on the topic and resolve the matter peacefully. Rain City Blues (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I've made no personal attacks, Rain City Blues. You accused three (now four) different editors of edit warring for each making a single revert, and yet you call foul when I point out that by reverting three (again, now four) times in the last 13 hours you are edit warring?
Ted Kennedy's funeral is huge news at the moment, yes. But Bush's non-attendance at the funereal is not. Therefore, it's a minor event and not notable enough to the subject's life to merit inclusion in this article. -- Vary (Talk) 16:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
RainCityBlues, as I explained to you at my talk page after you personally attacked me for reverting you[1], please don't try to make this into a controversy or into a negative. If Bush had skipped out on the funeral and released a statement saying "I didn't like Kennedy so I'm not going" and it was all over the news media, then perhaps it would deserve a mention. But that wasn't the case at all; he and Mrs. Bush decided not to go because, as I have explained to you before, they decided that the Bush family would be well represented by their son, former President George W. Bush.[2] That's it. End of story. There is no controversy, no intense media coverage on why George H. W. Bush didn't go to the funeral. It's not notable. Happyme22 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the news- this doesn't seem like something that will still be an important thing to say about George H.W. Bush a hundred years from now, or fifty, or even one. But if significant sources are still discussing this a year from now, it might be worth reconsidering. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, however we shouldn't judge based on what may occur in the future (WP:CRYSTAL). We should judge based on what is happening now and the overall relevancy to the subject of the article. Right now, I don't see anything in the news. There were a few stories, all of which presented the Bush family statement and didn't attempt to turn this into something that it is not. FisherQueen, you are correct that this is not something very important to George H. W. Bush's life and career. Happyme22 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If that is true, then delete this portion "On January 10, 2009, Bush and his son were both present at the commissioning of the USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77), the tenth and last Nimitz class supercarrier of the United States Navy.[81][82] President Bush paid a visit to the carrier again on May 26, 2009.[83]" because in 50 years, nobody is going to care that he visited an aircraft carrier
Unless of course you really are pursuing a personal agenda. Rain City Blues (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The air craft carrier is mentioned because it's named after him. That's why it's relevant to this article. I'm sorry, Rain City Blues, but consensus is against you on this issue. If you can find some more sources asserting that it was important that Bush didn't attend the funereal, rather than noting the fact, then the matter might be worth revisiting, but the wild accusations of bias are not helping your case. -- Vary (Talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Rain City Blues himself made the case against including this: "Now, the edit itself is relevant-this is probably the single most talked about event int he news as of late." "Ted kennedy's funeral has been the most prominent feature in all the major news sources for the past 3 days. I'"d say that makes it pretty damn notable, don't you?" Emphasis added in both cases. These two comments by RCB are the best evidence that the item he wishes to add is not notable. WP is not a newspaper. The Kennedy funeral is all over the newspapers now, but a month from now it will be forgotten. It will remain a notable event in Kennedy's own biography, but not in those of anybody who attended, let alone those who didn't. -- Zsero (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

'Home State'

What determines someone's home state?

In the 1988 election article, Bush's home state is given as Texas, but he was born in Mass. Who decides what his home state is? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, "home" is something that is defined by the subject- if he says that his 'home state' is Texas, then it is. Especially since he's certainly connected himself with the state for long enough to think of it as 'home.' Birth state, of course, is a different thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Home state is usually defined as the state you're elected from, which is not always the state you're born in. Reagan is from California, not from Illinois, Bush is from Texas, not from Massachusetts, for example.205.244.113.226 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dukakis Debate

I suggest adding the adjective "dispassionate" to describe the Dukakis response of "no" to Bernard Shaw's question. It was the tone of the response that affected voters since his opposition to the death penalty was already well-known. L3kn (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Public image

Here are my thoughts before I make any more changes:

George Bush was widely seen as a "pragmatic caretaker" president who lacked a greater vision in shaping the new world, admitting he had a problem with "the vision thing". "He does not say why he wants to be there," wrote columnist George Will.

I would like to reinsert this wholesale for the following reasons:

  1. It's all a part of the same sentence in the source "Bush may have helped usher the Cold War to an end, but he was largely viewed as a pragmatic caretaker president – a safe pair of hands – and he ultimately lacked the vision required to build a new world order in place of the old."[3]. We've essentially split a sentence, which changes the context, and IMO creates a POV.
  2. The fact that this was an attribute acknowledged by Bush himself IMO means this was a truth which spanned both sides of the political see-saw.
  3. "The vision thing" is apparently a notable phrase in and of itself as coined by Bush.
  4. I have more sources [4] that use that same quote and address that same issue about the seeming lack of vision.
  5. I think a quote like that puts Bush in a rare moment of candor, which gives a good sense of who he is. It also carries the information tacitly that he was a man who could accept his flaws.

Other points: "some felt" is weasely, and: (a) is always implied when talking about public image, and (b) is addressed by the word "seeming", and (c) is contrary to the sources which say "Bush's image shifted from ...", not "some thought his image shifted from...".

"He had told us a recession wouldn't happen, and now that it was here, all he had to say was that it would end soon."[5] Being sourced, I'd like to include this, as it was a part of his ousting based on economic troubles.--Louiedog (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit': apparently the quote was so notable that it became, at least once, a metonym for United States foreign policy.--Louiedog (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
[6] Another source commenting on inability to frame ideas into compelling greater picture.--Louiedog (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963342-2,00.html Time article saying basically the same thing. Actually, this became so interesting to me, I've started an article, which you may want to comment on due to its proximity.--Louiedog (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with how your version is written, as it implies subtly that people thought Bush didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't have a clue about anything, highlighted by the stressing of "widely seen". I doubt that he was "widely seen" as a caretaker, do-nothing president. "Shaping the new world" -- what does that mean? Bush was not given a new world and told to shape it.... In regards to George Will's quote, what is Will referring to with the word "there"? If you can answer those questions, we'll take the next steps and we can perhaps work something out.
In regards to the other points you raised: "some felt" is the truth. With public perception, some are going to feel one way, and some are inevitably going to feel a different way. We have no right to generalize those feelings into one belief, thus take one side. In other words, I guarantee you that not everyone felt that he went from a global hero to a politician befuddled by economic matters, and by eliminating "some felt," we are thus only showing one side's argument and ignoring the argument of the other side, violating WP:NPOV.
Regarding the quote about the economy: I don't think it is necessary. The article establishes that Bush was not reelected largely due to his reneging on "Read my lips: no new taxes" and the economic troubles. I just don't see the need to repeat this again. Happyme22 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between having the appearance of not knowing what's going on and actually not knowing. The point of the public image section is to discuss public perception, as documented by the ample sources, regardless of whether that perception has any grounding. The incident with the supermarket scanner is a classic example of how what actually happened wasn't nearly as relevant as what was popularly perceived to have happened. The sources say "widely seen", even if you personally doubt what they say; that makes "widely seen" verifiable and your personal disbelief, not. Remember: verifiability, not truth
The bit about not saying why he wants to be there was quoted in this context, here and here. The quote and context are: Bush also suffered from his lack of what he called "the vision thing," a clarity of ideas and principles that could shape public opinion and influence Congress. "He does not say why he wants to be there," complained columnist George Will, "so the public does not know why it should care if he gets his way." and This ultimate bureaucrat had a problem, however -- one that dogged him throughout the campaign and into his presidency. Conservative columnist George Will bluntly described Bush's limitation in those days: "He does not say why he wants to be there, so the public does not know why it should care if he gets his way."
It's pretty clear that "there" is the presidency. Of course, we don't even have to interpret what it means; we can just reproduce it in the same context it was quoted and let the reader decide. This is what we have source support for.
The truth is we'll never know if his failure to be reelected was "read my lips", the economy, or, as some suggest, that "he personified a continuation of the previous policies." Regardless, this is not what the section is about. "Read my lips" would only be relevant to the public image section, if it became the basis for a perceived quality of Bush, if it meant that Bush's image became one of dishonesty, and we don't have sources to support that. Sources do support, repeatedly and consistently, the "lack of vision" problem. And we've cut content out of a source mid-sentence in our failure to include the "lack of vision", which is a flagrant lack of context.
And just to nail home this "some felt" point, take a look at a President that has a non-trivial "public image" section, like W. Bush. for why "some felt" is simply not how it's done.
(1) In the "Support among conservatives" section, it says "This support waned, however, due mostly...", not "This support waned, however, from some due mostly...".
(2) Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image. "I think people look at him and think John Wayne." not "...folksy, American cowboy image for some. "I think some people look at him and think John Wayne."
(3) Bush's intellectual capacities have been satirized by the media[16] and other politicians[17] leading to speculation about his IQ, not Bush's intellectual capacities have been satirized by the media[16] and other politicians[17] leading to speculation about his IQ from some.
See also: Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton#Public_image, Warren_G._Harding#Speaking_style, Ronald_Reagan#Cultural_and_political_image for the style and content of "public image" sections.
So, overall, we must include anything that is reliably sourced, regardless of whether we personally believe it. There is ample support for Bush being seen as ineffectual on the economy for his being seen as having a lack of central and unifying theme in his priorities.--Louiedog (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot edit the page, but in the second paragraph of this section it reads "...prep school education lead to warnings by advisors...". "lead" should be "led".

Done. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  22:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Barcode Scanner

The section titled "Public image" includes the statement "A New York Times article mistakenly depicted Bush as being surprised to see a supermarket barcode reader;[63] the report of his reaction exacerbated the notion that he was 'out of touch.' This statement is supported by a reference to an article in Snopes.

Just prior to reading this I had sent a message to Snopes objecting to their characterization of the article in the Times. This is the content of that message:

"I was very surprised at this article about President Bush (#41) and a grocery scanner. The gist of the article is that the original story claiming that President Bush was "amazed" at a grocery scanner was false. My recollection of events, which were based not on that story or any other printed material, but on actual televised video of the event, is that President Bush really was unfamiliar with, if not amazed by, barcode scanning technology in use at the time in supermarkets and elsewhere.

"A small snippet of this video exists on YouTube. It is inconclusive due to having no audio. [Note, however, that President Bush's actions are completely consistent with the Times article.] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0fIhnboptk

"My assumption is that Snopes attempts to be an unbiased source of reliable facts. In this case I believe Snopes fails in this mission. In my own defense I can state that I voted for George H. W. Bush for President (both times). I also work hard to eliminate bias on my own part, even having tested for it and come out with a neutral 0.0 rating. (You're right if you perceive that I'm proud to have achieved such a result, as I set out to accomplish.)

"Please reconsider whether bias has crept into your own presumably unbiased critique here. It's important that Snopes' own claims not need debunking. As of now, in at least one case, it appears that they do."

The comment here in Wikipedia seeks to debunk the notion that Bush 41 was "out of touch." As reported in the original article, and repeated in the Snopes article, I recall Bush's press secretary Marlin Fitzwater stating at the time that the last time Bush had been in a grocery store was a year earlier, in Kennebunkport. How many of our readers can make a similar claim, that they haven't been inside a grocery store for a year, and that the one they've been in was located in a bucolic vacation spot in northern Maine? It seems to me (and seemed at the time, and troubled me) that regardless of the veracity of the original or subsequent articles, the main point is cogent: President Bush had no idea what it was actually like to be one of the average Americans he was leading.

Verdict: Bush 41's public image as being "out of touch" is well-deserved, and the word "mistakenly" should be removed from the sentence quoted above.

Panglos (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we have to go on what the sources say here, and not personal experience. That being said, The New York Times ranks higher on the hierarchy of wikipedia sources than Snopes, so it seems we should cite them both. In light of all this, we could remove the word mistakenly since, "A New York Times article depicted Bush as being surprised to see a supermarket barcode reader" is a true statement, the specifics of the depiction being omitted.--Louiedog (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of going with sources, what is the source for saying "the report of his reaction exacerbated the notion that he was 'out of touch'"? That seems to be thrown in with nothing to back it up. I think there is some truth that his image was harmed by the portrayal of this incident, but do we have a documented source saying that is so? On a side note, I daresay there are a lot of men his age who almost never go into a grocery store, as their wives did all the shopping. LarryJeff (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, read the Snopes article.--Louiedog (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

CVN-77

There should be something about the ship that was named after him in here. --Thegreene2010 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No Popular Culture Section?

I mean, everyone knows about that Simpsons episode ... 205.250.102.167 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA. In case you didn't know, Fox showed a clip of Bush speaking at an event for his 1992 presidential campaign in a rerun of the episode "Stark Raving Dad". Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Direct link needed

Under "Foreign policy - Panama" para 2 line 3: the link "ambassador" (United States ambassador) needs to be changed to the current article, Ambassadors of the United States by prefacing the link with actual article, as in [[Ambassadors of the United States|ambassador]]. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

George Herbert ?

I think I've read that he was named after George Herbert, but I haven't got a source for this. It's worth stating if true. Does anyone know for sure? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gulf/Iraq War

Hi! IMO the section on his involvement in the affairs of Iraq smacks of bias and flattery. the article should be unbias, i won't suggest my belief that, in a way, he was the cause of many unjust deaths, but can someone balance this? please? i am not the guy to do this.

as I believe he is a bad person. dunno about any conspiracy theory's and don't care, BUT I believe people died for his *rich* friends. money = lives WHAT? This war was not a few years long it went on for twenty years...saying it was less is a cop out, if you went out with your wife before you were married to her and it was on and off, you would still say the time served,.. right? a couple of months out of every two years at a time, doesn't lessen the years for me. sorry went on a bit. see? not the guy lol.Dava4444 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Youngest Naval Aviator

Charles S. Downey was actually younger than Bush when he got his wings.


In 1941, my dad, and my wife'sa dad, both about to enter college, joined the army. They were both sent to basic training and handed rifles. I find it curious that Mr. Bush was commissioned an officer and a gentleman, given an aircraft, a million dollar training program, and sent to the "other" war in the South Pacific.

Who made the decisions about who would carry a rifle, and who would be a commissioned officer among the teen-age enlistees of World War II. Is there any record of how the triage was managed?

Curious.......R,C.Loiselle, Maine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.251.226 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Going back on his 1988 election promise

This, in intro section, links to the Read my lips: no new taxes article, but actually he didnt bring in any new taxes, just increased taxes. Yes he went back on his promise, but should it link to "no new taxes" when thats not what he went back on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.192.156 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald

I'd have to imagine that this discussion has happened before but I am rather surprised there is no mention of Jennifer Fitzgerald in the article. What's up? Seems like she would definitely be noteworthy to have some mention at the least.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Apparently you are supposed to use the talk page before making a substantial change but I'm not sure anyone reads these things.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
George Bush is the most edited page ever and dad can't get any love?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me a mention of her [Jennifer Fitzgerald] belongs in the article. Was certainly a consistent news story when he was big on the scene.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So are we supposed to discuss controversial changes before we add them to the article here or not?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Never heard of this person - cannot imagine that it wouldn't have been plastered all over the news back then if there was even a remotely plausible rumor of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.38.6 (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Response from User:Frank

I can't say why there has been no discussion so far in response to this request, but when I saw the edits you put in, it was obvious to me that they were not within policy. There are at least three main problem areas, which I will address separately as a start. Please do not take this as an exhaustive evaluation, either.

Tone

The content of these edits was sufficient for me to revert the change without even checking any sources. It was written in a completely non-encyclopedic way:

  • ...rumored to be a long-running affair... - Wikipedia is not about rumor, unless perhaps the rumor itself is somehow noteworthy, as in a meme of some kind. Generally not what Wikipedia is about, however.
  • Hillary Clinton...complained in Vanity Fair... - Wikipedia is not about "he said, she said", especially from a seriously partisan political opponent. A little context about Hillary is useful too; this is the same person that "complained" about the "vast right-wing conspiracy". No opinion on the veracity of either comment, but the point is, they aren't useful as independent, reliable sources for an encyclopedic article.
  • ...overprotectiveness and flashes of anger in public... - This is somehow unusual for a politician's aide and supports in any way that an inappropriate relationship exists? (I don't think so.) Have you read anything about the recently-departed White House Chief of Staff?
  • In 1980, James Baker, who was Bush's close friend and campaign manager, threatened to resign unless Bush dumped Fitzgerald. - As blatent a misrepresentation of a source as one could imagine. Reading the source does not in any way imply an inappropriate relationship; it implies jealousy among aides to a powerful politician. That the word dump is often used as a means of describing the end of romantic relationships does not imply such existed in this case...even if the choice of word was intentionally meant as a double entendre.

Sources

The sources added were each questionable in their own ways:

  • Washington Post article - I don't have access to this article at the moment, but the title of it is enough: Bush Angrily Denounces Report Of Extramarital Affair as "a Lie"; Tabloid Story on Rumored Relationship With Ex-Aide Called "Sleaze". Using that as support for an extramarital affair is...puzzling.
  • People Magazine - This is not a bastion of reliable news reporting, especially when it is rehashing a story from the New York Post, which People (perhaps ironically) describes as a sensationalist tabloid.
  • Time Magazine - Discussed briefly above; this source clearly is speaking about Fitzgerald's professional relationship and makes no hint whatsoever about a personal one. It describes how various factions within Bush's circle of advisers see things differently and don't necessarily get along with each other. Using this as support for claims (see above) is not within policy around here.
  • Slate - First paragraph of this piece: "Want the best (if somewhat dubious) dish from The Family, Kitty Kelley's new treatise on the Bush clan? Follow Slate's reading guide straight to the good parts." Notice the words "Kitty Kelley" and "dubious"? These should be bright red flags that this is not a suitable source.

Words

There are quite a number of words in the edit that are completely unencyclopedic, including: rumored, complained, dump, slyly. These are charged words which do not display a neutral point of view; they all have negative connotations as soon as they appear on the page, and they unnecessarily influence the content they appear with. They form judgments for the reader, making it difficult for the reader to get a clear picture of what is actually being conveyed. For a discussion of a similar topic, please see WP:WEASEL.

Again, this is not an exhaustive discussion. The initial reading I did, listed above in the "Tone" section, was enough to revert the edits. In fact, The "rumored" and "complained" sentences by themselves were enough. These edits don't comply with policies, and cannot remain in the article. If you need more information, please read WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. (Others may direct you to WP:BLP as well, but I think that is of only minor importance, because the edits don't stand on their own merits, quite apart from whether or not the subject of the article is apt to sue Wikipedia.)  Frank  |  talk  13:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional note

(Brazile) nearly scorched her reputation at 27, when she was fired for the first time in her life after alleging that George Bush Sr., was a philanderer.  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

The Washington Post article is even worse as a source for this than I thought. It contains quotes such as the following:

  • Unsubstantiated allegations that Bush once had an affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, a top aide on his vice presidential staff and now the State Department's deputy chief of protocol, have been bandied about...
  • Several news organizations, including The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, have investigated the rumor but found no evidence to substantiate it.
  • [Bill] Clinton said yesterday that he deplored the New York Post article and sympathized with Bush.
  • Hillary's response to publishing what she had said in Vanity Fair: After the article appeared, she said she had not meant "to be hurtful to anyone."

Using this as a citation for the claim is questionable at best.  Frank  |  talk  17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank is dead-on with his analysis here. Agree completely, this quasi-information isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
All this may be fine and true. I'm not trying to make any claims as to whether or not there was an affair or whatever. That's not the point. The point is that the Fitzgerald-Bush relationship (and the surrounding rumors) was a major news story on and off for a number of years and this article lacks NPOV by not mentioning Fitzgerald. To quote WP:UNDUE . . . "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Now maybe Fitzgerald does not warrant an entire paragraph in the article but I would at least say she warrants a mention and maybe a couple sentences.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Considering that the man is 86 years old and has met many, many people over the course of his life, the "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" in this case amounts to zero. "Surrounding rumors" are just that. We do not record "major news" but rather encyclopedic content. Your edits represented "undue weight to [an] aspect of the subject", without question. This page is the place to attempt to develop any consensus to the contrary. So far, you've gotten radio silence on your first attempt to do so, and on your WP:BRD attempt to add in the material, you're meeting active disagreement. It may not seem collegial, but perhaps the amount of effort put in is a guide to how far outside of policy your edits strike other editors. In the first case, no effort was put in to even give the request any credence by answering it; in the second, considerable effort has been put in to remove it from the article and show (in great detail) why it is inappropriate. I apologize if this seems harsh, but I assure you this discussion is far more respectful than some others around here...check Talk:Barack Obama or Talk:George W. Bush and their archives.  Frank  |  talk  12:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
To address a few of your points at once . . .

"check Talk:Barack Obama" - Yep, I've been responsible for submitting content on Barack's talk page and ultimately (with consensus) put it on his page where it still is today. Not really sure why you feel the need to assure me the discussion here is far more respectful then those pages though . . .

"Considering that the man is 86 years old and has met many, many people over the course of his life, the "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" in this case amounts to zero." - You are blatantly misrepresenting Fitzgerald's significance in his life. She was an assistant to him in some fashion or another for nearly his entire political career. To frame this as just one of many people he "met over the course of his life" is ridiculous.

The "radio silence" argument is not only silly but also against policy. Let me remind you again. According to NPOV "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." As pointed out, the Bush-Fitzgerald relationship has been discussed extensively in reliable sources. To argue silence is in fact other Wiki users agreeing with you is rather silly. Perhaps other users thought that it was so obvious she belonged in the article that they didn't deem it necessary to reply. This is clearly not a situation to argue by omission.

"Considerable effort has been put in to remove it from the article." - Yeah . . . by you.

"We do not record "major news" but rather encyclopedic content." - True Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. To quote from WP:NOTNEWS . . . "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As established by reliable sources, Fitzgerald was an enduring news story over a number of years. This isn't an attempt to add a news story. This is an attempt to add content on a person of enduring notability in Bush's life.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald does not appear WP:NOTABLE at the moment. We do not have significant mention of assistants to major politicians (let alone presidents) as a general rule, unless such person is notable in his or her own right. Please also read WP:SILENCE. Also, you have yet to provide any link to any major news source that gives any credence to this rumor, while I have provided direct refutation of the rumor from your own sources.
You make a fair point about him having met many people; my choice of words was not as strong as it could have been. The idea is the same, though; he's a product of the work of and relationships with many, many people over the course of his career. Since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, she doesn't become notable in her own right just for having worked for him. Even if she were notable, that doesn't mean this claim has any place on Wikipedia. The burden of proof that it does remains with you. There's no policy it meets, and several it runs afoul of.
You seem to think that since only two editors have expressed opinions against this content that there is some chance it is appropriate. It's not; you may need more time (and more editors telling you) in order to hear it, but this material is simply not appropriate.  Frank  |  talk  15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll respond in greater detail but have you read The Times article? This is a major news source that gives credence to the rumor. There are others too I believe but I can't remember off the top of my head. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? The Times "article" is an excerpt from Kitty Kelley's book.  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
True but it is under the heading "article archive." Hence a major news source giving credence to the rumor. Not that said rumor is the only reason she belongs in the article.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by WP:SILENCE. It certainly does not corroborate your "radio silence" argument earlier. I believe she is notable. She wasn't merely a staff member for Bush. She was above and beyond that as is noted by the news stories on her and the influence she has on the H.W. as is noted through other quotes from notable people. The rumors deserve to mentioned even if it is noted that they were only rumors and were never substantiated or confirmed (and at least once vehemently denied). This is so because of the longstanding nature of the Fitz-Bush rumors. Without at least some mention of Fitzgerald this article is lacking NPOV.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
In other words, as repeatedly stated, the policy that requires some mention of Fitzgerald is NPOV.
"You seem to think that since only two editors have expressed opinions against this content that there is some chance it is appropriate. It's not; you may need more time (and more editors telling you) in order to hear it, but this material is simply not appropriate." - I also don't think this is a valid argument or one even worth mentioning but I would love to get some other views on this.
Also, I'd like to get your rebuttal to this argument I gave above . . . "We do not record "major news" but rather encyclopedic content." - True Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. To quote from WP:NOTNEWS . . . "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As established by reliable sources, Fitzgerald was an enduring news story over a number of years. This isn't an attempt to add a news story. This is an attempt to add content on a person of enduring notability in Bush's life.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I will leave the answer to this for others to provide, since you aren't hearing me.  Frank  |  talk  19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
To quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT . . . "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it." - It seems you are misrepresenting the policy as it certainly doesn't corroborate your point. You certainly can't be saying that 2 people is consensus. Also, I don't think there is anyway anything could possibly be even considered as having happened a "long" time after anything. Also, I'm not "refusing to acknowledge others' input." In fact I'm encouraging it. I would love to hear from some more editors other than you two. If another couple editors agreed with you all I would happily concede the argument. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the rules a little better before you try to school others on them.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I'll restate here, the sources are all just statements of rumor. The subject of the rumors isn't notable, there's no reliable source stating anything ever happened, and even if it did, it would have to be shown to be sufficiently notable in the grand scheme of the subject's life to merit inclusion. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is mischaracterizing the argument. I will respond in greater detail later.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, I saw some mention of this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents, so I'll try to add my two cents as a disinterested observer. I think adding these rumors and innuendos violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. Certain affairs, like that of Grover Cleveland and Maria Halpin, have been well documented by scholarly sources (and somewhat acknowledged by Cleveland himself). These merit inclusion. Others, like the one alleged here, have not been seriously documented and have certainly not been acknowledged by Bush. They should be banished to the realm of blogs and scandal-sheets. Coemgenus 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    She merits inclusion for more then rumors of the affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not gossip column or tabloid. This rumor is irrelevant and should be excluded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not for slandering or insinuating affairs on the part of living people. In fact, it's not for that purpose for dead people. RayTalk 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Encouraged the break-up of Yugoslavia

november 1990 he pressured U.S. congress to pass foreign appropriations law for cutting all credit and aid to yugoslavia. the law also demanded that if any republic of yugoslavia wanted further US aid, it had to brake away from yugoslavia. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

[7], [8] 188.2.169.209 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Family

I suggest adding a family tree starting at least with his father. Also, does he have any great-grandchildren? Considering the ages of his grandchildren, I'd have to consider that likely.I also would like the page to include his son the other George Bush.Don't Be Evil (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The family tree is on here: Bush family Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good research has been done that proves Bush to descended from the Scherf family in Germany. He changed his name before coming to the US. Good documentation supports this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.3.170 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Awards

Im very new to this, so im not sure if im following the right protocol, but here is just a thought. It seems to me that in the awards section we should mention he was knighted (Knight Commander Grand Cross of the Order of Bath) abbreviated KBE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.164.90 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2011

Edit request from 198.96.85.192, 15 February 2011

Feb. 15, 2011 former President George H W Bush received a Medal of Freedom the nation's highest civilian honor.

198.96.85.192 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Scray (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Political figure

I do not see why the lead should not describe GHWB as a "political figure" if we do so in articles like the one for Mitt Romney.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because Bush was a president and Romney was/is not. Consistency across presidential articles is key.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Romney was a governor and a presidential candidate. Why is he labelled by Wikipedia as a "political figure" but GHWB should not be? That seems inconsistent, especially given that your rule would work in favor of the Barack Obama article if he runs against Romney.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
If you'd like to discuss Romney's article you should do so on his talkpage and not here.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is it okay to talk about other presidents here, but not talk about other presidential candidates here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)For consistencies sake, presidential biographies do not lead like this. Its not my rule, its the general way that the articles have been written. If you don't like the way its written in the Romney article, then revert there. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is not verbatim the same as other articles for presidents. Why is this particular aspect important? Do you think it's disparaging in some way, or has negative connotations?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are oviously trying to be pointy, given you recent comments at the Romney page. Please keep your displeasure there are try not to disrupt this page because of it.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The present GHWB article earlier today referred to him as a "politician" in the lead. It was not I, but another editor from the Romney page, who removed it. I am questioning that pointy removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not in on the Romney discussion and could care less. What I'm concerned with is this presidential biography and the consistency across the project. "Politician" was added to this article about a week ago, and should have ben removed. When it was, you reinserted it, twice, even though you seem to have stated that it should not have been in the Romney article.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Focussing on this article, why is this particular aspect important? Do you think it's disparaging in some way, or has negative connotations?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Consistency.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Consistency relates to other articles. Can't we focus on this one? In any event, there are many things about this article that are different from the other president articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This is about this article, and how it relates to other presidential articles. I said constancy, but how about neutrality as well?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I tend to agree that characterizing GHWB as "political" in the lead is not a neutral characterization. It certainly doesn't really add any neutral information beyond what's already in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I kinda figured you were fishing for the word neutral, thats why I added it, but I am in no way taking any position on the Romney debate.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have been agreed NOT to characterize Bush as a 'political' figure, but it has been readded. Should it not be deleted again? Rodchen (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 131.94.186.20, 8 April 2011

Please Remove Footnote 11 because the link posted does not lead to an active url. It is a false citation that is used within the first several chapters covering George H. W. Bush's domestic policy. Please use a proper citation.

131.94.186.20 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Wayback machine's 2009 archive copy. Encarta pulled all of their encyclopedic info offline, but it's definitely still a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

In the First Term section of Bush's Vice-Presidency, there are repeated references to his "aids". These should be changed to "aides". Ta, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.14.93 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 17 April 2011

Done - thanks for pointing that out. -- Scray (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion: Where's the Broccoli?

Why can't I find anything about the Broccoli incident on this site? There isn't a page for it nor is there mention of the truckloads of Broccoli that were driven to the White House in response to Bush's famous "I'm the President now and I'm not gonna eat any more Broccoli" quote. The Broccoli was later donated to a Food Bank and Bush had to confess Broccoli sales had risen 10%

[Details about the incident are in this archived L. A. Times article.

Edit suggestion: supposedly and Bush-Clinton friendship working with the Tsunami

I have two requests. First, remove the word 'supposedly' dealing with the assassination attempt. Given all the evidence, there is no debate about it being real.

Second, there should be something written up regarding Bush's friendship with Bill Clinton and their work on behalf of the Tsunami and Katrina victims. Rodchen (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made the first change, as "supposedly" is a classic weasel word. The second part, though, is up to you. If you think such a section should be added, you'll need to do the research, write it up, and add it. Once you become confirmed (happens automatically after 4 days and 10 edits to non-protected pages), you can add it directly; if you want to get it in before that, add it here with a new edit request and someone can insert it for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush on the Anglican Church in North America

Former President George H. W. Bush is the most known pro-life Episcopalian in the United States and he also agrees with orthodox Anglicanism in the issue of homosexuality, so it would be interesting to find out if he already expressed any opinion or desire to join the newly created Anglican Church in North America, who is more in tune with the mainstream Church of England in these controversial issues. If he accepted to join the Anglican Church in North America it certainly would be a incentive for others disaffectioned Episcopalians to join it, since the Episcopal Church is facing a most likely exclusion from the Anglican Communion for their support for abortion and non-celibate gay clergy.85.240.18.162 (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Golf

This article is in Category:World Golf Hall of Fame inductees, but there is no mention of golf in the article. Should there not be? Interesting articles here here and here (the last one even comments, "A search of Mr. Bush's Wikipedia page did not turn up one mention of golf!"). --Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Years

  • 1948-1951: the article only mentions 'Bush moved his family to West Texas.' What else did he do besides moving for 3 years (politcally and professionally?
  • 1958-1964: 'so Bush moved the company from Midland, Texas...' and 'continued serving as president of the company until 1964', during which exact time period was he president (and founder as well?) of the company (he owned?)?
  • 1964: 'Bush served as Chairman of the Republican Party for Harris County, Texas in 1964' which political activities was he ivolved, before 1964 - he became interested in a political career overnight? I would be very happy if someone could provide the missing information. Hoffmansk 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

Edit request from 98.236.111.99, 4 August 2011

He was not an actor/director


98.236.111.99 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And I cannot find on the page where it says that he was. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add historical entry to GHWB presidency in BLP.

Please add the fact that the cold war ended under GHWB presidency in his BLP, as this is an historical event that should be mentioned in this article. Please also add citation for GHWB being called George Bush Sr., as this is an inaccurate statement, at best. You may change it to the senior George Bush, but GHWB Sr. is erroneous and should be redacted. Thank you Why is this BLP locked down from other editors constructively editing it. Afterall, most editors can rollback or undo edits that are not correct. 65.8.150.136 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

CIA Officer

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y153/SollyMack/PresJfkBush.gif

George H.W. Bush was an agency officer during his time with Zapata Oil, which was not illegal back then prior to laws later that made it illegal to own a business or run a front on domestic soil if you worked for the government. Pretty common back then amongst intell employees, expected even sometimes of them if they had significant social status. This has been denied for a very long time by him, but the National Archives has this doc along with at least one instance of Hoover writing in the margins of something else identifying that a certain quote from G.H.W. Bush as being that of a CIA Officer by that name. And not someone else with a slightly similar name. Military background. Wealthy, politically-connected family. Lots of connections in the South. Makes sense he'd have gone that route and later be chosen as DCI. The Bush family itself has a similar history of denying the grandfather's well-established connections to one of Hitler’s primary financiers. It isn’t the misdeeds that get you, it's the lying and cover-up. So the unauthorized autobiography probably has a lot more legit information than people realize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.115.103 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As said above, Bush was mentioned in the Hoover memo as saying "member of the CIA." George H.W. Bush was also well-connected and close, both personally and professionally to Allen Dulles, head of the CIA during the Bay of Pigs disappointment. JFK abruptly fired Dulles after that incident and had plans to dismantle the CIA, such as having J. Edgar Hoover locate and stop all the clandestine anti-Castro Cuban training camps. Bush and the rest of his CIA crew remained loyal to Dulles throughout this period and weren't happy about Kennedy's plans. Bush was also mentioned in the Nixon tapes as "the Texans" when talking about covert operations he knew about or was part of in some way. Bush and the rest of his CIA right-wing war/conflict supporters already felt Kennedy was a Castro sympathizer and were livid he wasn't for the Bay of Pigs operation in both support and with official military action, but the final straw was when Kennedy was working with Kruschev at the time on getting rid of nuclear weapons and strongholds. This was seen by the Military Industrial Complex, which Bush was involved being in the CIA, as a sign of weakness and in a sense "laying down" to Russia. I have multiple sources, one of them being a documentary "Dark Legacy" where his material presented were varified from sources. I urge anyone to check it out if they want to be in for a shock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.90.214 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 November 2011

The second sentence in section 7.1, Presidential Library, states clearly that,

"This tenth presidential library... contains the presidential and vice-presidential papers of Bush and the vice-presidential papers of Dan Quayle."

This just looks like a goof. 98.90.98.246 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Specifically which part? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_H._W._Bush/Archive_4&oldid=704207937"