Jump to content

Talk:George W. Bush: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pielover87 (talk | contribs)
203 edits
it's been a while since it was linked from /.
Line 2: Line 2:
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{High-traffic|site=Slashdot|url=http://slashdot.org/articles/05/12/24/0843220.shtml}}
<!-- Fact and Reference Check Banner BEGIN -->
<!-- Fact and Reference Check Banner BEGIN -->
{|-
{|-

Revision as of 02:00, 2 January 2006

This article is the Biweekly Special Article for the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject. Please add references for this article as you see fit.

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (Abuse RfC), 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38


Why is America the Nazi States of America?

Is America the Nazi States of America? That is the first question you know. Endomion 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims are held secretly. Just like the Jews of Nazi Germany. Germany had excuses; Nazi States of America blame the criminals of 9-11 and start a war.

Must be working, no major terrorist attack since 9/11/01. Endomion 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution is ignored. Like Nazi Germany we have secret surveillance. Crummy, dopey surveillance.

If it's so dopey why worry about it? Endomion 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush lies and people died. Clinton lied and got impeached, but like Nazi Germany, nobody can touch Bush because Congress is 'stacked' with loyalists.

It's called democracy. We vote for Congresspeople every 2 years. Endomion 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The media is propaganda. Like Nazi Germany, we have to read about Bush going after the NSA leak, and completely ignores the Valerie Plame/Karl Rove leak. The media plays along.

The Plame Name Blame Game is small potatoes when the media is tipping terrorists to our intelligence methods in wartime. Endomion 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom in the Nazi States of America. You want to take your medicinal marijuana? You will be thrown in jail with the Meth Pushers and the Murderers.

Someone tells you no smoking doobies and you call the US nazis. Check. Endomion 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight against the government you cowardly Americans. You are worse than Nazi Germany because by now you should have learned your lesson.

The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Endomion 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic Wages War on Wikipedia :O

Faith Based Error

The Wikipedia article says that early in 2001 Bush obtained legislation to change the funding etc. of faith based charities. This is not the case. The following is a quote from the New York Times, Dec 13, 2002: "President Bush acted today to make it easier for religious organizations to receive federal money for social welfare programs, invoking both executive powers and his belief in the power of faith to help society's neediest people." Legislation was held up in the Senate, so he evoked executive powers. This seems like a clear mistake that should be corrected. If such legislation exists, it should be referenced. 

03:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Al Rodbell  blog alrodbell.blogspot.com  NYtimes article available at:
http://alrodbell.blogspot.com/1994_12_01_alrodbell_archive.html

Graph

Is it possible to get an updated graph for the approval ratings section. The one shown seems to go only through Oct '05. Thanks. Arkon 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Outside perspectives on semi-protection

For those who are concerned (or not) about this or any other article becoming permanently semi-protected, please peruse the insightful comments on Slashdot [2] and Digg some time. [3] These people are Wikipedia users (in the reading sense) and potential future editors as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • THE GOD OF WAR PATIENTLY WAITS FOR THE TIME WHEN YE POOR CHOICE OF PRESIDENT SHALL CAUSE THIS NATION TO FALL UNDER THE FORCES OF ITS OWN GOVERNMENT - DARK RIDERS OF THE NIGHT - GO FORTH TO THE FOUR WINDS - THIS LAND IS RIPE FOR THE PLUNDERING--God_of War 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman?

Thanks for playing, but it doesn't take much brain power to see that you're a parody of a liberal, rather than the real thing--63.22.95.82 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Warning

I have removed the ugly vandalism warning. Thanks to sprotect this page has been realatively quiet and this warning is not needed. I can see three days worth of edit history now.--God_of War 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in Article RE: 2004 Election

The article refers to a "record voter turnout" for the 2004 election. Not true: actually, it was the highest turnout since 1968. The article is also misleading---it gushes with fawning praise for Bush, saying that he got "more popular votes than any previous presidential" candidate---but it fails to mention that Bush received, in terms of absolute number of popular votes, a victory margin that was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Also, Bush's win was, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin ever for a sitting president. This info ought to be included in the article for balance.

So include it then. CDThieme 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There should also be a blurb about the way the Electoral College system makes discussion about popular vote margins moot. Endomion 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is GW Bush a young earth creationist?

I believe he is because he's a fundamentalist Methodist. This link seems to support such a notion. Can anyone give definitive proof one way or the other? --Jason Gastrich 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he is, but the proof is upon you, if you make the assertion. And he's not a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are very much separatists who are quite suspicious of any doctrinal inclusiveness. If he were a Fundamentalist, he would leave the United Methodist Church. Bush is an Evangelical. And there is a difference.
On Creationism, United Methodists run the gamut from Young Earth to Evolutionary Creationism. Pollinator 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That article is only pointing out that Bush thinks "creationism" should be allowed to be taught. Believing something should be allowed to be taught is not the same thing as agreeing with it. Also, "fundamentalist Methodist?" Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Mark K. Bilbo 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with having a discussion where citations are provided. No need to assume anything. --Jason Gastrich 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, fundamentalists simply affirm the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; and I understand that Bush does that. --Jason Gastrich 00:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, without a source, should it be in the article? Matt Yeager 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. However, I was hoping this discussion would bring links of all sorts that we could analyze. So far, no such luck. --Jason Gastrich 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All Christians would say that they affirm the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. However Christian Fundamentalism is a movement with some important specifics, among them being rather rigorous separatism. Furthermore, does President Bush call himself a Fundamentalist? Associated Press guidelines (and a good NPOV guideline for Wikipedia) is that the appellation is only to be used for those who self-describe themeselves as Fundamentalists. Pollinator 01:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All Christians saying they affirm the fundamentals isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not they actually do.
I think Bush has described himself as believing in the fundamentals of Christianity, but that is completely besides the point. We need to find some links that have Bush quotes where he describes his belief in the age of the Earth. --Jason Gastrich 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised at this controversy. First, Bush is a politician, and that's his primary belief system. Second, saying creationism should be taught (although a typical creationist belief) is not the same as being a creationist. Third, the definition of Fundamentalist should be verified before leveling that accusation against Bush. It's not simply "he agree with certain fundamental christian beliefs". It is indeed more than that. Look at the link.

Also, and this is my personal opinion, Bush can't be a fundamentalist because he's even less Christian than I am, and I'm not Christian. Harvestdancer 21:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pollinator is quite correct; were President Bush a fundamentalist, he would immediately leave the UMC. He is by definition not a fundamentalist, though he seems to be, as Pollinator points out, evangelical. Fundamentalism is not compatible with United Methodism; evangelicalism is compeletely compatible with United Methodism; as Pollinator has said, please note the difference. KHM03 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Methodists went back to the practice of paedobaptism with the other mainline Protestant churches. Fundamentalists universally insist on adult baptism. Endomion 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An issue to add

I was surprised that the article had nothing about Bush's policies on detainee treatment, enemy combatants, Abu Ghraib, the McCain amendment on torture, interrogation methods, etc. Can I add a small section on this? Is there a {mainarticle} to link to? Dave (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the POV just keeps on growing. Why don't we just rename the article "Why George W. Bush is the antichrist"? This article has already become a dumping ground of every Bush criticism that can be found with absolutely nothing indicating he has ever done anything good in his life. -- Jbamb 13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the truth hurts. He's a semi-retarded former alcoholic and crack addict who has been repeatedly estimated as being responsible for over 100,000 deaths in Iraq. He and his administration have also worked tirelessly to completely dismantle the American political system. He and his demoniac vice president have also had the unspeakable gall to criticise John Murtha and John McCain, men who had decorated military careers before entering politics, when Bush and Cheney both dodged military service themselves.

-- "He's a semi-retarded former alcholic and crack addict" -- with degrees from Yale and Harvard. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Not if you know anything about his family history, it isn't. Degrees can be bought and/or forged. It's all about having money and knowing the right people. That's how he was able to dodge military service as well. He's also been repeatedly acknowledged as the least intelligent member of the family.
Petrus4 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself wondering what the oblivious minority who still defend Bush are going to think when the mask finally fully comes off, and they wake up one morning to find themselves living in what will unmistakably be a repetition of Nazi Germany, complete with concentration camps and all the other trimmings. I guess the rest of us will be shown not to have simply been paranoid, crackpot conspiracy theorists then, won't we?

"and they wake up one morning to find themselves living in what will unmistakably be a repetition of Nazi Germany" -- if you actually believe that, you're either semi-retarded yourself, or you have no understanding of what life in Nazi Germany was like. Attack the man on legitimate grounds if you want, but leave out the childish hyperbole and you might actually be taken seriously.

I know that people were woken up in the early hours of the morning at times and dragged off by the Gestapo. I know they had to use bulldozers to clear the corpses out of at least some of the concentration camps. I know about the culture of racism that existed in Germany at the time...which, although you might not realise it, is actually fairly similar to the culture of racism that has been an integral part of America since the country was founded. I also know that like the German army under Hitler, there are far too many members of the American military today who are willing to follow orders without question - orders which morally should not be followed.
You can call me childish if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change anything.
Petrus4 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno man. After the Gestapo came for Janeane Garofalo in the middle of the night and fed her into that chipper shredder, I been starting to worry.... 64.2.235.137 18:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Strider[reply]

In fact there is a lot of parallels between the Nazi regime and the Bush regime. Like the History reapeats itself. See the following interesting link [4]. Wikipoet 12:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Petrus4 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: including information about "Bush's policies on detainee treatment, enemy combatants..." Yes, we do need to include this information. Right now, the article reads like a puff piece from Karl Rove. By contrast, the article on Clinton includes every crazy, wild-eyed allegation ever made by right-wing talk radio ("Clinton murdered Vince Foster," etc.).
Well, that must mean we are coming close to NPOV. Critics on both sides think it leans the other way. I guess that's a good sign. As to Harry491's comment, I would disagree that they are "Bush's policies". Some are DoD policies, some are things critics want to portray as policies. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are "policies." Even if torture etc. isn't a policy, stopping other branches from stopping torture is definitely policy. Read as many of the following as you like: [5][6][7][8][[9][10]. There are people (e.g. National Review) that defend this stuff, so it wouldn't have to be POV. But executive power in the war on terrorism and the level of oversight from other branches is a major issue that this article needs to discuss, even if you support what Bush is doing. Dave (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even if Bush were to veto the bill, that wouldn't be policy, that would simply be him vetoing a piece of legislation. And didn't Bush say that the US does not torture? Wouldn't that be his policy? Sorry, I don't have the talking points at hand right now. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


To be exact he killed about 30'000 civilian Iraqi iraqbodycount, about 2’500 coalition soldiers [11] and an unknown number (estimated to 10’000) Iraqi soldiers. The original reason of the Iraq war (WMD) is a farce. The connection to terrorism is a farce. The reason of war is the oil [12] and I am surprised that this issue is not mentioned. The energy crisis will still be the problem nr.1 of this century.Wikipoet 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you feel you can add that in while sticking to a neutral point of view then it can be added. I'd say for sure that it is encyclopedic material... just make sure you don't put opinion in and it will be a valuable contribution! Deskana (talk page) 12:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My contribution seems that foe some peaople is not POV. It is based on facts and I think that the Energy Strategy is the most important issue in the history of the 21th Century: Here my contribution. Please rethink or proove that the facts I list are wrong before immidiatelly delete it. My contribution is also an aswer on the question "why Iraq War?"
Energy Strategy Behind the Iraq War
While much time and discussions ware spent on finding reasons for the invasion of Iraq, one of the clearest strategic reason for the USA to attack Iraq in 2003 was securing future oil supplies. The proposed reasons (links with Al-Qaeda, threats to other countries, the WMD) have all been refuted or, at least, shown to be seriously flawed. The world consumes about 30 billion barrels of oil per year with a global reserve (including all possible future discoveries) of about 1000 billion barrels [13]. Neglecting increases of consumption there is oil until maximal 2038. The USA has about 25 billion barrels reserves while consuming about 7.5 billion barrels per year. Around 2010 more than 50% of the world’s oil production will come from OPEC (reserve of about 500 billion barrels) and with other major supplies also being in unstable areas - eg. Venezuela (reserve of about 40 billion barrels), Russia (reserve of about 90 billion barrels)- there is a great fear that the USA could be held to ransom in the future, especially since it uses far more oil than any other country. It is not unusual in the history for countries to strategically go to war to secure something that they absolutely need and do not have. The industrial civilisation is extremely depended on oil and alternative energy sources or nuclear fusion even in its modernst design (ITER) will not be able to replace oil in a near future (50 years). USA and Europe would have not worried to liberate Kuwait (58 billion barrels), or invade Iraq (71 billion barrels), if did not have together 129 billion barrels oil reserves. It is probable that there will be many more wars for oil in the first decades of the 21th Century. There are four countries which will decide future wars: Europe (EU), Russia, China and the USA. Europe has high energy use but its federal structure may not be strong enough to use its armed forces to secure oil supplies. Russia has the advantage of having its own large reserves of oil and gas (about 90 billion barrels), and its military will probably be concerned with stopping others getting access to it, rather than obtaining other countries' resources. China does not, as yet, require large amounts of energy and its future attitude could depend on how it could restrict the growth in energy needs. The USA is the key player: it is not only the highest energy consumer in the world, it has the strongest military forces, but, unlike the other three, it has no land access to the two largest oil and gas sources – the Middle East and the Caspian region. Transporting oil and gas by sea is a very vulnerable method of supply. It is much easier to replace a length of oil pipeline than an oil tanker. It is easier to bury a pipeline underground than to design a submersible tanker. This vulnerability will make USA likely to be centre stage in future wars.
I will reformulate some sentences to be more POV, but this issue is really important, and if somebody can proove me that if oil will end at 2038 is not of strategic importance, I am open to discuss.Wikipoet 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this POV? Why?
Energy
The world consumes about 30 billion barrels of oil per year with a global reserve (including all possible future discoveries) of about 1000 billion barrels [14]. Neglecting increases of consumption there is oil until maximal 2038. The USA has about 25 billion barrels reserves while consuming about 7.5 billion barrels per year. Around 2010 more than 50% of the world’s oil production will come from OPEC (reserve of about 500 billion barrels) and with other major supplies also being in unstable areas - eg. Venezuela (reserve of about 40 billion barrels), Russia (reserve of about 90 billion barrels)- there is a great fear that the USA could be held to ransom in the future, especially since it uses far more oil than any other country. One of the strategic reasons for the USA to attack Iraq in 2003 was securing future oil supplies. This strategy was designed by the organisation "Project for the New American Century”, among their members are Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who make clear the attitude of the USA with respect the oil and energy strategic reagions[15]. It is not unusual in the history for countries to strategically go to war to secure something that they absolutely need and do not have. The industrial civilisation is extremely depended on oil and alternative energy sources or nuclear fusion even in its modernst design (ITER) will not be able to replace oil in a near future (50 years). It is probable that there will be many more wars for oil in the first decades of the 21th Century. There are four countries which will decide future energy conflicts: Europe (EU), Russia, China and the USA. Europe has high energy use but its federal structure may not be strong enough to use its armed forces to secure oil supplies. Russia has the advantage of having its own large reserves of oil and gas (about 90 billion barrels), and its military will probably be concerned with stopping others getting access to it, rather than obtaining other countries' resources. China does not, as yet, require large amounts of energy and its future attitude could depend on how it could restrict the growth in energy needs. The USA is the key player: it is not only the highest energy consumer in the world, it has the strongest military forces, but, unlike the other three, it has no land access to the two largest oil and gas sources – the Middle East and the Caspian region. Transporting oil and gas by sea is a very vulnerable method of supply. It is much easier to replace a length of oil pipeline than an oil tanker. It is easier to bury a pipeline underground than to design a submersible tanker. This vulnerability will make USA likely to be centre stage in future security issues.Wikipoet 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, what we put into the article needs to be verifiable. At this point, we cannot prove that the US went to war for oil. Second, no original research can be added, and that is what this whole section appears to be. Sorry. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my NOR and it is verifiable at [16] dated 7 jan 2003.Wikipoet 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first, that link still doesn't prove anything. It is a couple of opinions from Butt, and later in the piece, quoting Stimpson to Parliament. It has a good bit of "shows signs of..." and "could lead to..." and "might happen if". Until there is proof that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, we can't include it. I could find quotes of people saying Bush wanted to go to war to avenge his father's quarrel with Saddam, but does that make it true? No. Just because you find something on the Internet does not make it fact or verifiable. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok, here some video testimoniance and documents supporting this theses: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22],[23],[24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. I think that this is enough to open a discussion and have some doubt that that wasn't a reason? Wikipoet 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but I'm not going to indulge these conspiracy theories any longer. But you are more than welcome to your opinion. See you around. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you are also welcome and anyone is welcome with opinions. We will see in 30 years what the History will tell us, or just the next president. Anyway having doubts on some official opinion does not mean conspiration theory, it is just the nature of humans. US did not invade the Iraq for oil? For what then? A mistake of the CIA information? This is what Bush is telling us. Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction or any links with Al Qaeda, and the Downing Street memo prove that Bush knew all this before invading Iraq. That is very, very tragic for all victims. Who will tell that to all mothers of the dead soldiers, to all relatives of the dead civilians. Killed honourable and courageous Americans and Iraqi for a ‘noble cause’? Which ‘noble cause’? Not even the oil for survive the next 40 years? No ideal, No idea, no goals, no strategy, no reason, just a mistake, a misunderstanding…. No offence, but indulging doubts you could fight the war or at least find a ‘noble cause’. I find it tragic that today, in US, there is somebody else called George who lives and works in a city which was named after George Washington – and as opposed to this first George, he is a man who can never tell the truth. This second George is forced to spend all his time trying to sort out the damage his lies have created. And he’s starting to look more and more like a circus juggler who keeps throwing balls up into the air and tries to catch them before they hit the ground – but in reality those balls are bombs which fall on kids who are playing in real streets. Have a nice evening. Yours Wikipoet 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I can here the violins now. By the way, George Washington had more men die under his watch at one winter in Valley Forge than Bush has had die in Iraq so far, so don't think Washington was some untouchable figure from history. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GW Bush in the Nobel Prize Literature

Is it possible to add a link to the new work of Dario Fo (Nobel Price Laureate of Literature) dedicated to Bush, or the wikipedians are afraid by arts? Here the link to the work: [Peace Mom]. Of course, this work critics the Bush Iraq politics, because no WMD was found, and this can hurt some Bush fan, but it is still a literature work of a Nobel laureate!!! and it is part of the world culture. If a link to Michael Moore's site is inserted why not a link to a Literature Nobel laureate? Wikipoet 09:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the following link will always be deleted? is that POV or censorship?
That fact belongs on the Dario Fo page. It's too minor to be mentioned in this article unless it has received some really significant mainstream press coverage. android79 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush at Kennedy Center Honours

Did anyone see him lick his lips when looking down at Beyonce Knowles? Anyway did he get a mention for being at the KCH? --Jingofetts 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but the president?

he licked his lips. --169.244.143.115 21:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Writer Category

Ok, he's a Christian, and he's a writer, but is he a Christian Writer? Harvestdancer 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Public perception and assessments" intro

I reworked the intro a bit, could use a bit of work but maybe it's the right direction? I guess my problem is that it uses the "supporters" vs. "opponents" mantra, but in real life I think its a bit more complicated. Also, does anyone know who coined the bushism term? Maybe it would be best to use that rather then the generic "opponents".

Public perception and assessments

Bush has been the subject of both popular praise and scathing criticism. Some believe he has done well with the economy and homeland security, and shown exemplary leadership after the September 11 attacks. However, some have disagreed on those very subjects and have also criticized the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the controversial 2000 election, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

File:Time 2004 poty.jpg
Bush as TIME Person of the Year for in 2004. The Person of the Year award is traditionally given to the person considered by the editors to be the most important newsmaker of the year. This is the second time the magazine chose Bush as its Person of the Year, the first of which was in 2000.

Due to Bush's colorful mistakes when speaking, opponents coined a new term, "bushism", to describe the grammatical configuration unique to Bush. Bushisms have been widely popularized and archived across the Internet due to their humorous nature.

WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SProtect

I'm pretty sure the vandals won't go away in a week. They are on a 3 year cycle most likely.--God_of War 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the point to semi-protection if it isn't to be implemented for extended periods? Why the big push for semi-protection just for this article, if we're just going to treat it like regular protection? I'm sure the devs would be glad to know they wasted their time on this. --BRIAN0918 03:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most likely, semi-protection will be applied many times to this page. We still want to lift it regularly to justify that it is still a response and not a pre-emptive measure to vandalism long since past, but as long as it sustains serious vandalism, semi-protection will then be re-applied. --kizzle 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about having the next lifting of semi-protection wait till, say, January? Of 2009? Because that's the earliest possible time that we're going to have a respite (at least a small one) from the flood of wannabe vandals. Thank God for term limits. Matt Yeager 05:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, when many of us supported the implementation of WP:SEMI it was understood that it would be used in only the most egregious of situations (such as this article) and only for short periods of time...if we don't abide by this as clearly stated on the policy page, then we are risking losing it due to many people who have clearly stated that they are concerned about it being put in place on a more or less permanent basis.--MONGO 12:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw this as a big problem from the start. When there was discussion about regular protection being applied permanently on this article (by itself or with a separate ediable article), that should have been a sign that people would push for permanent semi-protection. Perhaps the devs did waste their time. Just my thoughts, though. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian0918 wilfully misunderstands the use of WP:SEMI. It wasn't developed specifically for this article, which is so many peoples' favourite rallying cry for "anons must not edit". Sprotection is designed to treat a particular vandalism problem while allowing everyone else to continue as usual. To suggest it was designed as a means to apply long-term anon exclusion to articles, as is said above, completely misunderstands how a wiki works. And don't lecture me on the fact that this is an encyclopedia not a wiki: it is an encyclopedia written on the wiki model. The two concepts do not seperate, and should not be seperated.

If people really think the devs have wasted their time, they might look at WP:PP and see the perfectly good use that has been made of WP:SEMI since its introduction to deal with particular problems in a light-touch way. -Splashtalk 18:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • But this article is different from all the rest. There are more reverts on this page than on any other. This should show that this page is a special case. How many anonymous edits are good? Next to none. Maybe to indefinitely semi-protect this page is against the letter of the policy. Doubtless, however, it is within the spirit, which is to allow normal editors to edit without the distraction of vandalism. We have the option now; it would be a fantasticly stupid decision to not make use of it. [[Sam Korn]] 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of periodically lifting semi-protection to gauge the article's continued attractiveness to vandals, but until he's been out of office for a year or so, that {{sprotected}} tag will probably have to be there most of the time. I worry about protection creep, but I don't buy the slippery slope arguments. He's the most controversial figure in the world, and there's no doubt it's a special case. We're not a bureaucracy, so we should be ready to accept ad hoc exceptions to our policies and guidelines. This is one of them. If you want to choose a battleground against protection creep, I suggest William Shakespeare or perhaps Joseph McCarthy. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beeing controversial is the streng of wikipedia. Protecting this article means loosing credibility. The end of wikipedia. And donations. Wikipoet 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. Wikipedia is neutral and neutral doesn't equal controversial. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the reversions of your changes, semi-protection isn't even an issue. You made them after it was re-established. Your changes were removed because they violated our neutral point of view policy, which has survived quite a few donor drives. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not mean that because of removing of my changes. I do not care. It is just a danger for the profound mechanism of wikipedia. Wikipedia is the largest online cultural event because it is open and self organized. Like a big brain. Deleting a contribution for NPOV reason is part of this self organisation and I accept this with no problems. Discussions are also part of this big brain. But it is my opinion that protecting a controversial article like Bush, will put a censorship light on wikipedia. Imagine that this will be put on the newspaper: “Wikipedia protect contributions on Bush article: Alert! Censorship”. What will happen? Vandalism are something that wikipedia has to live with. Better vandals than a smell of censorship. Vandal you can correct. Smells not. Be careful with protecting this article. Regards, Wikipoet 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Except we've gotten in a lot more trouble for having bad information in our articles than for protecting pages (which happens quite a bit). Tis better to be accurate than just allow anything in the articles. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, finding the equilibrium between open content and accuracy is a hard job, but it is a ‘noble cause’ to serve the largest encyclopaedia ever written. Wikipoet 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date Error/Confusion in 2004 Election discussion

The existing page reads:

In the 2004 election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. [...] This was the first time since 1988 that a President received a popular majority.

That should either read "first time since 1984", or more likely "since 1988 that a winning Presidential candidate received". Not to be pedantic, but the sentence as is is at the least confusing ,and at first sight wrong -- as Bush the elder was not yet president when he was elected.

64.2.235.137 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Strider[reply]

Free Republic "Action Alert"

FWIW, this article, along with a few others, is the subject of a Free Republic "Action Alert". [30] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite quote from that page: "There is little doubt that Lefty academic types have way more time to continually screw around with the editing, than a bunch of conservatives with real jobs."
My second favorite quote is"We must fight our cyber/information warfare for our purpose. This is a war fought at a civilian level challenging those who are trying to bend history. There are children that may view these and be brainwashed by it. We have to protect our children from fabricated history."
My third favorite is someone saying "Hopefully, FreeRepublic will not be blamed for [the original poster's] obsessive fixation with Wikipedia."
Dave (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As funny as that first quote may be, there's a bit of truth to it. Who's got the most free time to waste on contribute to Wikipedia? College students. What political tendencies do college students have, as a whole? Fill in the blank. :-) (The second quote is just scary.) android79 06:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"What political tendencies do college students have, as a whole?" "Legalize it"? --8bitJake 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, but not unexpected. They're not the first to try and organize an attack, and they won't be the last. Let them fight their windmills: they too will fail. – ClockworkSoul 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that that third quote made my day. :) Matt Yeager 20:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

un "lock" this article

this "article" frozen in its current form , is an afront to reality and a smash up far left propaganda job, will members of the left never cease to protect such "articles" from public scuritny? so much for the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" <img src="http://www.homecomputer.de/icons/ussr-flag.jpg">, your "encylocpedia"'s new mascot

please propose changes to the article in this talk page. Kirils 08:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking new users and valuble contributers? no wonder people want to sue you guys
You guys wouldn't be Freepers, by any chance, would you? android79 08:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the encylcopedia ANYone can edit??

Really? thjen why can't I edit this page?

Because you're still too wet behind the ears. Because this article was getting vandalized at the rate of almost once every few minutes, the article requires more hurdles to jump before you can edit it. Register for an account, make a few edits, then come back to this article. Also please sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am a registered account, as valid as any other "editor" like yourself, this "semi locking" thing is a scam, you keep editing privillages a secret for your "elite" friends 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Namr. 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way. All you have to do is contribute to a few other articles, then you're free to edit this one. It's regrettable, but necessary to prevent the extremely persistent and damaging vandalism that was happening to this article on an almost minute-to-minute basis. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, you are as valid as everyone else. As are the anonymous IPs. It's somewhat similar to the feature for enforcing username changes. Your IP gets banned along with your username- its a side effect of enforcing a name change that administrators can't stop. Regrettably, you can't edit this article. I'm sure you will be able to soon. :-) Deskana (talk page) 08:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where have the pictures and articles gone?? Has someone vandalised this article again? --Sunfazer 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image and infobox

Why is the photograph of El Presidente removed, and why is his infobox incomplete? For such a high-profile page, it's embarrassing that we're missing such things. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&oldid=33543411"