Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

NPOV sign still necessary?

I have made a few minor (style) edits to "Early Life" and replaced the POV "unnamed environmentalist" with just some environmentalists. I have read the whole article several times and see nothing wrong with it, if anyone disagrees with killing the NVOP sign then please list the reasons. Voice of All(MTG) 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You're new here as far as I can tell....the huge length of discussions here are all the reasons needed for the continuance of the tag. I am opposed to it's display as well, but the fact is that there are many that have chimed in in one way or the other and the argument is usually about neutrality. Now if there was an accuracy tag, I would agree to it's removal, even though there have also been those that question the accuracy of the article. "Unnamed environmentalists" isn't POV, it's just unreferenced.--MONGO 18:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am new. Anyway, MONGO, there are a lot of disputes(pages and pages), but many of them have been resolved or fixed. The remaining issues are based on "variation" vs. "mispronounced" of the word "dubya". Variation is the best, but either one is fine, I mean who cares? Well, obviously some people do :). But such things just are not worth a NPOV tag, many articles still have discussions and revisions without NPOV tags. Voice of All(MTG) 18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag, thank you. Please read beyond the dubya controversy discussion.--MONGO 18:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I know that there are other running issues, but I was trying to say that they are all of the same relevancy, not much. Also, "unnamed", although not at all HIGHLY POV, does seem to suggest that the critics are just some unknown people without established(well, well known at least) reputaions, like ameteur greens. "Some" is less implicitive, albiet bland and lame, so I think it is better. Voice of All(MTG) 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You accidentally deleted the comment about the poll which I put back in below. The poll question is just one of many ongoing disputing either the neutrality or even the accuracy of this article.--MONGO 18:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry! I got the error that someone else(You I guess) had made changes to the talk pages after I had started to edit it in the edit box when I submitted, I wasn't sure what I was doing exactly so I pressed back twice (talk page) and rewrote my post, apparently I still accidently deleted something. :/ Voice of All(MTG) 19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV still needed? heck yeah! read the article once. It practically drips pro-bush lovin's. Until the article has some resembalence of neutrality, NPOV should stay.

Pro-Bush, where does it "love" Bush, and please sign your post.I don't even like Bush, but I still think that the article is pretty NVOP(ignoring random vandals). It is definitely NOT pro-Bush. Voice of All(MTG) 20:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the tag should be removed as well, but it's probably futile. Rhobite 20:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

it is not NPOV because any thing negative is "alleged" and anything postive, is. it is POV'ed because nothing negative is allowed to be posted without sugarcoating it. Glosses over the fact that he lied to the american people, started needless wars, killed many americans, glosses over his drug scandal, glosses over his violations of the first amendment, glosses over the fact that he lets his religion dictate what laws he signs, glosses over the fact that he makes up words, cannot speak publicly, glosses over the fact that many americans distrust him.

Yikes... sounds like someone could use a nap. Just kidding. I don't think anyone thinks Bush will go down in history as the best president ever, but you seem to harbor something deep within you that dictates that if it isn't negative it must be POV. Many left-wing editors (many who HATE Bush) have said this is a pretty NPOV article. It still needs tweaked here and there, but on the whole, it's not that bad. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your POV posts anon! I don't like Bush either but this article should not say "Bush lied, bush is killer, bush is a radical crusadar, everyone hates Bush" that is NOT a professional or NPOV article. And there are PLENTY of criticism for each act and policy he signed, read the article. It is in the style of "Clear Skys reduces this...but critics say) (S. Security provatization will do this...but critics...ect...). This article is NPOV. Voice of All(MTG) 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i must have misread the article. Now that I look back, the absense of ANY mention of WMD, and bush telling the public iraq had them is suddenly NPOV, where it was POV before. Silly me. Same with all the link between iraq and the 9/11 terrorists.... oh wait, i WAS right, they are not included because they are negative things about bush, forgot we cant have that here.

Here we go again. Anyone want to take up a pool on how long it takes Steve to get himself banned this time? TexasAndroid 20:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Steve, It's all covered in the proper articles: George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States (a sub-article of this one), 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. There is a limit to the level of detail which can be covered in one single article. Likewise, your recent "bushism" addition is covered in Bushism. Please do not re-add it here. Rhobite 20:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, i get it, if something is in one article, it CANNOT be in another article? even to provide context for the link? oh, ok. Give me a bit and I will start deleting EVERYTHING in the bush article that is in another article, and then NOT include links to it. Is that what you are saying? naw, you just dont like bushism because it is a truly neutral article that lets bush make himself look bad.

Anonymous user, please register and sign your name. Anyway, I do agree that the Iraq War should at least be mentioned (as part of a Foriegn policy section(see my post below)). But if you wrote this article it would look like a Michael Moore commentary, much worse than it is now. That is all :) Voice of All(MTG) 20:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll Statistics

A recent Zogby poll showed Bush's approval rating a 46% for the month of March, 2005 - the lowest Bush had ever received, and the lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II. With the exception of John F. Kennedy, however, it is still the highest career long low-point rating of any President since polls began.

I can't be the only one to find that these two sentences contradict each other. Having a "lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II" and "highest career long low-point rating" don't seem compatible. I'd like to see some clarification on this. (unsigned comment by Randvek)

The "second term-rating is too vague" so it should be the contradiction that goes. Also I motion for removing the NPOV sigh and putting up an ACCURACY sign instead until the statistic issues (Ok, so there are still important disputes) are resolved. Voice of All(MTG) 19:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the two statistics can be reconciled. Some Presidents hit their career lows in their first terms. Some of them, such as Carter and Bush 41, weren't elected to second terms. Presidents who get re-elected tend to be those who are better at influencing public opinion, so second-term ratings tend to be higher, because the Presidents who couldn't sway the public as well have been weeded out by the election. So, to invent some numbers for illustration purposes, suppose Carter during the hostage crisis or Bush 41 as the economy tanked got approval ratings of 39%, while the worst ever received in the first or second terms of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton was 52%. Then Bush's 46% would meet both stated conditions. JamesMLane 19:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a sentence I don't understand

From the article:

Among these appointees, Negroponte, Abrams, and Poindexter, along with Otto Reich (Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere for the Secretary of State) were criticized for their roles in the Iran-Contra Affair and for allegedly covering up human rights abuses in Central and South America.

This is right under the section about Bush's cabinet. My question is this, Why is this in the article? This has nothing to do with Bush, could be seen as POV, and are (at this point) unsourced. Should we remove this, or was it added to "add balance"? (By the way, I hate the rationale that adding POV stuff to stuff that is the opposite POV makes an article NPOV. I guess it is the old "Two wrongs don't make a right" thing. Dang, I hope i don't lose my reputation for being an Evil Lord) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well after re-reading my post, it looks like I won't lose my reputation for being a poor typist or grammarian. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly the point...the article is not neutral. I see no reason for this unless it is there to make Bush look like he supports their actions due to his appointing them...they were criticized but were they actually found guilty?--MONGO 19:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's appropriate in an article about Bush to include some information about his appointees and the reaction to them. Abrams did indeed plead guilty to criminal charges. You want an idea for balancing it? With a little research you could probably find support for the point that Bush's appointment of Christie Whitman was generally welcomed by environmentalists, who considered her more pro-environment (or at least less rabidly anti-environment) than some of the people Bush could've put at the EPA. If my recollection on that point is true, then it's also a notable aspect of Bush's appointments that could be mentioned in the article. JamesMLane 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, remember James Watt...the "thing" Reagan put in to head the Dept. Of the Interior...talk about someone that was on a witch hunt to make the National Parks into a big strip mine...or a parking lot...I would agree that Whitman is a much better choice for that post than Watt would have been for any post. Thanks for the clarification...info man!--MONGO 19:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Watt had a tendency to make everyone else look good by comparison. I don't think it would add much to the article to say that some of Bush's appointees were less controversial than Watt! JamesMLane 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree...it's not much of a complement to say that Bush never appointed someone as bad as Watt...but between Reno and Ashcroft...that would be a toss up of lousiness too.--MONGO 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

So it would be valid to go into every U.S. President's article and write commentary on their appointees? I just don't see a valid reason for keeping something like this, unless there was a huge well-known controversy (Clarence Thomas, for example). Perhaps I am being long-sighted, but will this sentence be important in thirty years? Oh well, I'm not going to fight to take it out, I just thought it seemed like it was oddly stuck in there. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NO it wouldn't...it's probably here because Bush is the sitting President and we are actively engaged in evaluating him, whereby the other Presdients are now all has beens.--MONGO 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to give a discourse on every appointee of every President, but how often does it happen that a President appoints, to a high position, someone who was convicted of criminal conduct for his actions in a previous appointed position? JamesMLane 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, not to be too lawyerish, but you said yourself he pled guilty, he wasn't convicted. But i think that's beside the point. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

New lead photo

Which picture is better for the lead of the article? Both are "presidential portraits" while he was in the White House but the top photo is at a much larger resolution than the bottom.

I personally feel the top one would be best, but thought I would post here first for some thoughts. --tomf688^(talk) 20:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, go with the new one(on top), it has higher quality and it is larger. You have my vote. Voice of All(MTG) 20:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Isn't the bottom one the current term portrait? The top one is from his first term. I think the more up-to-date photo is better. Isn't the top one a little lower in the article? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it really maters, Bush hasn't changed much physicaly(not that I know of). So the new one is fine in my opinion. Voice of All(MTG) 20:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The bottom portrait is only a year or two more recent than the top. And no, it isn't in the article at the moment (Bush's gubernatorial portrait is, though). --tomf688^(talk) 20:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct sir. I didn't look closely enough and mistook that picture for the gubernatorial one. Seems most people prefer the top one. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Toss in my vote for the top one. Not particularly concerned with first vs second term on it. TexasAndroid 20:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like the bottom one, but it's your guys' call. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think the bottom one looks slightly better. (Banes 18:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

The bottom photo should lead since it is the President's current official photo as opposed the first one which was been superceded by the White House for the bottom photo. BCV 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You're not making what may be your strongest argument, :) that you've updated the bottom photo, and there is no longer a signifigant quality difference between the two. I still prefer the top one, but my previous voting for it was based on the quality difference in the two pics as much as my general preferences between the two. I will not revert you again, but I will say that the first vs second term argument still doesn't matter much to me, and that IMHO it really should be more a conscensous/majority descision as to which one is used, rather than automatically using the more recent one. TexasAndroid 19:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom photo (George-W-Bush.jpeg) I have updated it with a higher resolution photo issued from the DoD BCV 19:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I found that exact same image on the bottom literally five minutes ago on the DoD website, only to find that someone uploaded it just a few hours earlier. And I was so excited, too! :) --tomf688^<TALK> 05:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Foriegn Policy section....

OK, some anon rant mentioned WMD and Iraq. Well, the WMD turns out to be more of a CIA issue (although Bush was planning for Saddam's demise as soon as he became president). However I do believe that FOREIGN Policy should be a new category, includng the Iraq War, the question is who will write it. The Iraq War is too important not to include, thats my only problem with this article. It just need a little more info. All in favor of this new category, lets vote. Voice of All(MTG) 20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The article definitely needs a foreign policy section. The main article is at Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it should be summarized and given its own section in this article. I haven't read that article closely; it may have POV problems of its own. Rhobite 21:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

To bad that article has no citations. This will be a mess to create. Voice of All(MTG) 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

More Archiving

I archived most of the science debate and some of the Heit/Hype debate as well. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a compressed version of the Bush Foreign Policy article

We need to add a Foriegn Policy section in this article. Right now my first proposal looks like this(much of it is the same text as the main article). Please make any comments. Voice of All(MTG) 22:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

(My proposal is no longer needed, Foriegn Policy section was restored)

Voice of All(MTG) 02:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The missing foreign policy section

This is a consequence of all the vandalism plus disputes that are substantive but on comparatively minor points. We miss more important things because it's so hard to stay on top of this article. I didn't understand the above comments, knowing that of course we had a lengthy foreign policy section. Uh, whoops, we don't! It was deleted by an anon in this edit.

I've restored the text that was deleted, but I don't have time to go over it carefully right now. Because the article's been evolving without it, there could well be some duplication, or other passages that need to be changed. But at least we don't have to start from scratch. I also haven't checked it against the proposed draft above. The version I've pasted back in was worked over by many people over many months, and is wikilinked, so it will be easier to use that as the base and add in anything useful from the draft above.

What I copied in was taken from this version of the article (July 6).

Also, I'm reformatting the above sections so that each separate section (what would be a heading if the material were in the article) doesn't have its own top-level heading in this talk page's TOC, because that makes it hard to follow. JamesMLane 23:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes this a WHOLE LOT easier, now we don't have to start all over. These anons are REALLY starting to get annoying. If you want to change something, REGISTER, and EXPLAIN if it is that major! People should at least be required to register before being allowed to make edits. Voice of All(MTG) 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The principle that anyone can edit, even without registering, is highly valued by many Wikipedians. I would guess that, right now, there's no practical chance that that principle will be abandoned. What is being discussed is the proposal to designate some highly vandalized pages as being "semi-protected" in that only registered users could edit them. You can read about it here. (I can't believe that I got this response in, and that MONGO got the link into the next section, before kizzle could jump in with a plug!) JamesMLane 01:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You are quick! Like ninja! --kizzle 01:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, only five minutes more and you would've had me. I came back here to add that the Village Pump discussion of the proposal is the place for people to express support or opposition. JamesMLane 01:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No that's the thing, its not. The proposal already has an enormous amount of support, but nobody can do anything about it. People interested in this absolutely *NEED* to visit this site, make a comment, vote for the enhancement, and tell your friends. --kizzle 01:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

To quote from that page:

So Admins, what happens now considering overwhelming support? --kizzle 00:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Find someone to write the code for you. Simply having admin status does not mean one can. Filing an enhancement bug on Bugzilla wouldn't hurt. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. No offense, but what good is a proposals section if an option with overwhelming support simply gets archived with no action on it? --kizzle 16:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. Did you think that by getting support for something, that would force someone to write the code for you? -- Cyrius|✎ 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

--kizzle 01:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ban user "70.178.69.157"

This idiot completely removed the article(deleted it and put up some idiodic dribble) until it was reverted. Oh, and he also vandalized the Harry Potter Half-blood Prince page. People like this need their IP# banned. Voice of All(MTG) 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It happens all the time...thats why heavily vandalized pages should have a block to ensure only registered users can edit.--MONGO 01:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

That would be unfair to the , albeit rare, serious editor whose anon.

Gabrielsimon 01:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I have never understood this dogmatic belief that "anonymous" IPs are more anonymous than usernames. I can tell more about someone who hasn't logged in then if they create some account with a random name. Just tracert the ip and you can get a general sense as to what city they live, whereas make an account titled "hoojaboob" and no one will ever know anything about you unless you let them. What am I missing? --kizzle 01:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

haha ah ha ha! most randomly assigned NON-proxy-ips reference random servers, I've traced myself to just about every state in the united states, depending what time of day, and server traffic and what not, it's entirely random, meaningless information, try me, I'm sure the results will be humourous, rofl! I just ran myne, who knew, I'm in Vienna, Virginia, United States, I only wish I had an appropriatly goofy emoticon to denote how silly that is - 172.150.56.37 01:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

also, why aren't we discussing that its unfair to ask editors to revert vandalism on a page that gets vandalized 30+ times a day? --kizzle 01:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

If I choose to edit through an open or anonymous proxy, there is going to be absolutely no way you can trace anything other than the IP itself, which will lead you nowhere if I want it to. Not that most anons really give a crap, but it's certainly possible to remain completely anonymous based purely on IP. Certainly more so than a made-up username would be, though I think you raise a good point in that the MediaWiki software hides logged-in users' IP addresses.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, but assuming you're not using a proxy, logged-in accounts are ironically more anonymous than "anonymous" IPs. Using a proxy on either raises the anonymity. --kizzle 01:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Question about vandals

Isn't there a limit to the number of previous versions an article can have stored. What If someone with a lot of free time vandalizes an article 40 times in a row as fast as possible? Could it ever be reverted? Voice of All(MTG) 02:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of us who would revert that, before it could be done too many times.

besides, arent here like 500 earlier versions of tlk pages? it seems liklythat it would hold true for article pages, im gnna go look. Gabrielsimon 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

yep, 500. !!!!

WOW!!! Wikipedia must contain like 10,000,000 terabytes of data if so many articles have 500 backups. If each has 20 backups(average), thats like (20) x (400,000) x (the average article size)! Voice of All(MTG) 03:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yup. And the Wikimedia Foundation needs to have the hardware to store all that and make it readily available to thousands of users at once. That's where you come in. JamesMLane 03:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice plug! Yes, it's true (AFAIK), all of the tens of thousands of past revisions of this article are stored on the Wikimedia servers. One of the keys is compression - old revisions rarely need to be used, so they are compressed to save space. Rhobite 03:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

For those interested, here is a brief comment on the subject from User:Ed Poor, who is a Developer here. NoSeptember 14:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed My Pet Goat Picture

Is there any reason to have the "My Pet Goat" picture up? It doesn't connect to anything in the article and seems to be nothing more than a slight on the president. Also, it leaves this enormous white space in the article, ruining the flow. (I deleted the picture once, it got reverted, I just deleted it again, and would like to hear the opinion of anyone who wants to put it back on why it should be there.) --Matt Yeager 23:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I see no whitespace in the previous edition, and as for the value in there I think that's slightly debatable as it may be interesting to see his reaction to the 9/11 attacks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This particular photo is best known for its use in Fahrenheit 9/11 and in mockery by Dean-type liberals, giving it a natural anti-Bush POV. J. Parker Stone 03:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

its still the truth of how he reacted, regradles of pov, so it should be there. Gabrielsimon 03:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I also see no white space. There is no basis for saying that a picture of unquestioned accuracy, one not taken by Michael Moore or Howard Dean, is POV. More important is that this issue was discussed at great length several months ago, the result of which was to keep the picture but to add a caption summarizing how his supporters and detractors saw the incident. Then the issue was discussed at great length again more recently, the result of which was to keep the picture but delete that part of the caption. Nothing in Wikipedia is cast in stone, but since this has been hashed over quite a bit already, I think it shouldn't be changed before people have a chance to address the latest incarnation of the issue. I'm restoring the picture. JamesMLane 04:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole "The Pet Goat" title in and of itself is just an implied Moore slam against the President's intelligence. So he was reading a story in a children's book series to an elementary school class, so what. I don't mind a description of what he was doing when he was informed of the attack but the picture needs to go. J. Parker Stone 04:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael Moore did not force Bush to sit and read a children's book while New York was burning. At least Bush wasn't stuffing his face with a Wendy's cheeseburger at the time. --Watto 04:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture is 200% misleading and only people blindly POV see otherwise. "Picture of unquestioned accuracy" -- what does that mean? Pictures can be more misleading than anthing else. The fact was, the infamous events of September 11 were unknown to all at that time (if the military had known it, they would have stopped the other 2 planes). In retrospect, now that we know what was to come, this picture is simply POV. The last commenter absolutely proves that the picture is POV. There are more pictures of Hillary Clinton floating around that would be entirely misleading also -- all "pictures of unquestioned accuracy", but I suspect a few here would object to including them on her page. --Noitall 04:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That was what Bush did. It's what anyone would have done, in my opinion when the situation was thusly unknown. How is it misleading? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

he was told that the WTC was on fire, and he didnt move from his seat. thats not POV, thats fact. btw, 200% is impossible by defninition. Gabrielsimon 04:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't there a different caption to this pic when it was down near the references section? The quote gave some info on the context of the pic, and currently that info is found in the My Pet Goat article. I'd suggest either placing a See My Pet Goat note in the caption or restore the old caption. I would strongly object to the pic being removed, as despite all the popular criticism of Bush everywhere (no one can deny he hasn't been one of the most popular Presidents in the general arena) this is the only pic to show Bush in any sort of negative light. Count 'em, 15 pics in the article, and 14 have Bush smiling with diplomats or family or speaking to a huge audience. The Pet Goat tries to balance some of that. Harro5 04:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Balance" doesn't require an awkward shot utilized by Moore. I haven't checked all the pictures, but from what you've said the other pictures seem to be showing events, not making any kind of judgment. J. Parker Stone 04:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this crazy idea that just because Moore used the pic it is irretrevably tainted. It's an accurate picture of a historical moment, and certainly more relevant and valuable than fourteen similing photo ops. Gamaliel 04:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd probably rebutt that by saying that where the U.S. President was and how he reacted when his country was attacked (at that stage it could have been the next Pearl Harbor, remember. We didn't know what had happened) is one of the biggest events in Bush's term. Harro5 04:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

so he kept calm, paused for a sec cuz he was shocked, then finished the story before leaving. certainly the delay can be criticized, but this particular shot isn't the way to do it. i personally was not aware of the specific picture until Fahrenheit 9/11, and i got a feeling plenty of other Americans weren't either. J. Parker Stone 05:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the My Pet Goat article and this doesn't even [i]belong[/i] there. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Many of your reactions to this picture are a perfect Wiki NPOV Rorschach test, a test which many failed. It certainly does not belong. --Noitall 04:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

his reaction was to do nothing, this is shown by the picture, so i say ir does belong ,and is notPOV, it simply shows exactlyu what he did. Gabrielsimon 05:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Noitall states that "the infamous events of September 11 were unknown to all at that time". To the contrary, it is undisputed that Bush stayed in the classroom for several minutes after receiving news of the second attack. In fact, he's been praised for it. I personally preferred the next-to-last version we had, the one I think Harro5 is referring to. The caption had an additional sentence along the lines of "Some people have criticized Bush for his apparent nonchalance, while others have praised him for not alarming the schoolchildren." Would that reduce the objection? The fact is that, for example, the teacher in the classroom said later that she was glad Bush had acted the way he did. The picture itself isn't POV. Your POV determines how you interpret the picture. I think the sentence summarizing the views would be an improvement. Finally, in both previous go-rounds, we heard this ludicrous argument that because Michael Moore made use of the photo, and Moore is biased, then for us to make use of the photo is biased. Well, the Bush campaign made use of the photo of Bush perched in phony heroism atop the rubble at Ground Zero, so by that logic we'd have to remove that picture -- along with any other that's been used by a partisan on either side. JamesMLane 05:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I support retaining the photo if it has a caption like the one you describe here. The one currently with the photo does not give enough context. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The difference in your comparison is that the Bush campaign utilized the Ground Zero photo (like any Democrat would've had they been in charge that day) to appeal to patriotism, whereas Moore publicized this photo in order to slime Bush as a general tactic of "make the president look as stupid as possible" in 9/11. Your caption suggestion is alright, but I reiterate that the article could do without the picture. J. Parker Stone 05:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't used to bolster patriotism, but to further the general Republican tactic of trying to impute that only they are patriotic. Put another way, the Republicans used the Ground Zero photo as part of a general tactic of "make the President look as heroic as possible", while Moore used the Florida footage as part of a general tactic of "make the President look as stupid as possible". The partisan uses of these visuals are perfectly parallel. JamesMLane 10:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

he could have left the room like " im sorry, children, but theres something i have to take care of" or something like that. there are ways of doing your cuty without cuasing alwarm. Gabrielsimon 05:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this picture adds nothing to the content because the caption and the text near the picture say nothing important about it. Please put in a sentence IN the article(other than the uninformative caption) by the picture or take it out. I don't mind either option. Voice of All(MTG) 05:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Previously there was a short statement that stated something like: Bush reads book My Pet Goat with school children after being informed that a second plane had struck the second tower at the WTC. Bush has been critized by some for his apparant nonchalance and praised by others for his calm demeanor. It went something like that, but not sure what happened to that commentary which accompanied the picture.--MONGO 06:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I went through the history(briefly) and couldn't find it. Someone should add it back in, I'll try if no one else does. Voice of All(MTG) 06:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on the value of having this pic if given a proper context. Hopefully someone can regenerate that caption, as when I saw it I found it a very NPOV description. Harro5 06:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I tried to update the "Pet Goat" caption, What do you think?Voice of All(MTG) 09:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

...I keep getting server errors...Voice of All(MTG) 09:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I ruthlessly dumped your caption and restored the one we had in about two months ago. There's not all that much substantive difference between them, but the older one had been worked over by a few editors, so it's less likely to cause someone to protest against a bias that the rest of us don't see. JamesMLane 10:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You found it...nice work.--MONGO 10:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[This edit] mentions the televised picture. Perhaps if some insist, it may be changed to videotaped...but that gets for a long winded summary of the picture. I am not a fan of this picture because of it's context in which it is utilized in Farenheit 911, just as I am not a fan of the link to Fareheit 911...but there has been a consensus for inclusion of these items, so continuing to argue over the caption which is fairly NPOV needs to cease.--MONGO 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well although the above user said the argument needs to cease, i'll just add my last two cents. Is it really "apparent nonchalance"? Couldn't Bush have known that the federal government was on it and he just wanted to finish the story, then get out of there? J. Parker Stone 07:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't nonchalance..he looks uncomfortable as hell to me...I support a rewording, but we already went through this before and while I was hoping to have the picture removed originally, I consented to creating a more neutral explanation. The only thing that saves the picture is the fact that though it appears in F911...it was filmed by an unrelated third party...just a video tape and the picture is a vidcap. I would prefer the vidcap which shows Andrew Card(?) whispering in his ear about the second plane...personally, I don't take great offense to the picture so long as I can erase the fact that Bush hater Moore used it in his movie.--MONGO 07:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion he looks uncomfortable. using "nonchalance" there just bugs me. J. Parker Stone 08:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree...but I was happy to get a positive reaction about the picture placed before a negative one...I also said I'm done with any more edits in any politically charged articles...relegating myself to reverts of vandalism and contributions in talk so that's all I can do. In all fairness, it is a historical caption, and a very rare one at that, in which we all get to see the reaction of a person at this level to a monumentally serious situation. I just don't like the "jumping to conclusions" that some have...I said before, he looks uncomfortable and perhaps he had a brain fart...who knows.--MONGO 08:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with much of what MONGO states. But I believe the statement "reaction of a person at this level to a monumentally serious situation" is both accurate and entirely misleading. It is accurate on its face. But otherwise truthful photographs can be the biggest purveyors of the lie (see Joseph Goebbels, Triumph of the Will. There have been an infinite number of monumentally serious situations and, yes, we have pictures of them. At this point, there was no knowledge of terrorism or coordinated attack on America and no knowledge of what was to come. No one ever thought the towers would come down, etc., etc., etc. The picture is 100% misleading because it does not convey any of these things. That is why it was an easy tool for Michael Moore to use for his Propaganda. --Noitall 15:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure that's true. When Card whispered in Bush's ear, he told him that a second plane had hit the towers and that "America was under attack." Bush already knew about the first plane when he went in there. So Bush knew that it was a coordinated terrorist attack (unless they thought maybe China was flying planes into our cities). --kizzle 16:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am no fan of George Bush or his policies, but it seems to me that this photo violates the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. Kudos to those who have kept their political affiliations out of Wiki completely. It seems some Wikipedians have no regard for such policies and blatently wear their politics on their sleeves, Gabrielsimon included. --Amish 4:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Unresolved Issues

Now are there any other issues that have been re-hashed into the ground that people want to go over again? Speaking of which, I think the whole drug usage passage is blatant POV, I think we need to delete the entire passage or at least file an RfC.... --kizzle 17:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

If we do that, we absolutely need to make sure Fartbag gets the final word in!--MONGO 18:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind.Voice of All(MTG) 18:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure he was kidding as am I. No the main problem with the article is vandalism.--MONGO 18:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I almost asked "are you kidding" but that can be taken the wrong way, easily.Voice of All(MTG) 18:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Once this page is agreed upon it should be locked until other serious issues are raised in the talk page. That way Vandals will only have a small window to vandalize.Voice of All(MTG) 18:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm opposed to locking the page unless the vandalism gets completely out of control. In most cases, the vandalism is performed by one or two individuals and is only a real problem when one individual creates a sockpuppet account to try and take over editing and consensus.--MONGO 18:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It already IS a serious problem, Sometimes when I load that page it just says "all you need to know about Bush" or Bush appears as a monkey or it says "Bush is an IDIOT" 500 times; everyday this crap happens! Whoever is doing this must be a VERY intellectual, TOLERANT person open to debate and discussion, unlike those THEY accuse of starting wars without dialogue...!;-) Voice of All(MTG) 18:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but locking the page will only end it for the period of time it is locked...it would resume immediately after the page is reopened. The best thing is to do a semi-protect on the page whereby only registered users could edit this heavily vandalized page.--MONGO 19:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

(cough)...semi-protection...(cough) --kizzle 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for that...thanks!--MONGO 19:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I voted for the semi-protection bug! Voice of All(MTG) 22:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

re-elected

The second paragraph of the article said that "George Bush was elected in 2004, narrowly defeating..."

I changed 'elected' to 're-elected'

I also took out the adverb "narrowly" as this is a subjective term and I have not noticed consensus from political scientests that Bush's re-election was particularly 'narrow.'--Henrybaker 00:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would explain your edit or not, It seems you did, good. I would have to agree that "narrowly" just doesn't apply to the 2004 election (unlike 2000). A 118,000 vote difference(48% v 51%)is definitely close but not narrow.Voice of All(MTG) 01:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

---TROLLING by user 172.163.188.163 REMOVED---Voice of All(MTG) 01:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

excuse me>? since when could we censor other peoples comments? he didn't win the popular vote, thus he was the president, w/o winning an election, making the term 're' incorrect--172.163.188.163 01:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I wans't the one who reverted you that time it was Android, not me.

Definition: 1elect \i-"lekt\ adj 1 : chosen, select 2 : elected but not yet installed in office <the president-elect> (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.All rights reserved

This is a dictionary, a Fact. Gore counted valid electorial college votes, a Fact. Bush, by definition was elected twice, a Fact. Facts don't count as Trolling. Please read the article on Internet trolls.Voice of All(MTG) 01:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You get one more edit before 3RR is broken. Just because you can't dispute facts doesn't mean that you contradict them and then delete post containing such references. Your post was totally unfounded and created to provoke anger, I simply removed it.Voice of All(MTG) 02:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the comment alteration by 172.--- because it was the first abuse that I saw. If all you guys are going to do is alter each other's comments, that isn't going to be very productive. Regardless of who's trolling, this should not be done except when following WP:RPA. Regarding the popular vote thing, 172.---, it'd be best if you bone up on Electoral college. The popular vote has never directly determined the winner of the presidential election in the US. android79 02:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I only deleted his first comment, which he pretty much restated in another post below it which I choose to leave up there while he kept deleting my entire argument with false trolling accusation posts (look at the history archives and see who was really trolling). Oh well...:)Voice of All(MTG) 02:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

yes, we would, and that would be you, either censor it all, or restor it all, there was absolutly no reason for my first post to be censored, yet all his posts remain, and mine does not--172.163.188.163 02:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain whether an argument continues to exist here, but in 2004 Bush was narrowly re-elected President in the electoral college, which is what elects Presidents. He narrowly lost the popular vote in 2000 and won it by a fair margin in 2004, but this is only relevant for public support. He won the greatest number of states by a wide margin in both 2000 and 2004, but this is only relevant for breadth of public support. --Noitall 03:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

No, no argument, not now. Anyway, what will it take to get down that NPOV sign. This article is neutral enough that a discussion can continue without the tag, like how it is on many other articles.Voice of All(MTG) 03:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page due to the waves upon waves of vandalism. Any thoughts? Redwolf24 (Talk) 03:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You should vote for the semi-protection feature at bugzilla. For now, I guess a lock is what we need, even though I know a lot of people won't like. It will definetely stop all of these vandalizing anons for now. If someone wants to change the article we can have a vote, and the unlock to change it. This article gets attacked 30+ times a day.Voice of All(MTG) 03:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've made a small change to the infobox to change his status from dead to alive. The effect of this is to remove the date of death lines from the infobox. This is a case of minor vandalism which appears to have been present for some weeks. Normally I'd make this change without a note on the talk page, but since the article is protected I'd better make it clear what I've done.

-gadfium 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Until its unprotected if anyone wants to make a change, just do it at a user subpage then show me it and Ill add it myself. Redwolf24 (Talk) 03:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That implies ownership. Unless you were approached by numerous editors requesting a page protection then you should unprotect. The level of vandalism at the time of your protection was actually much less than it has been for a few weeks. This is a politically charged article..the vandals will be back so the best thing to do is revert the vandalism...however, a flip side of my opinion is that nothing of any substance has been added to the page for some time now.--MONGO 03:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

A user-subpage is not the best pathway to edits, agreed. But please keep up the lock, Wolf, just monitor the discussion page for new issues.Voice of All(MTG) 04:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

This does not imply ownership. This page hasnt had anything added to it thats not vandalism or minor edits in a while. Plus lets wait til that semi protect thing happens whatever its about. As of now Im leaving it proteced.

If semi-protect is something you are for then register and vote here but this won't allow only admins to have sole editorial rights, which would ruin this wiki, but it does ensure that only registered users are allowed to edit heavily vandalized articles such as this one.--MONGO 07:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page will always be vandalized 30+ times a day. Period. Subsequently, your suggestion that all future changes must be directed from you does indeed imply ownership as Mongo stated earlier, was not requested by anyone involved in the editing of this page, and is a violation of your power as an admin. Please un-protect the page. Thank you. --kizzle 06:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with kizzle that the page will always be heavily vandalized (or at least for the next few years). I think it does need protection. It needs to be protected from admins who come along and lock it. This has happened several times, with an admin not previously involved noticing the heavy vandalism and protecting it. What does this accomplish? It's not like we can ride out a temporary attack on a particular article (as if, say, someone were briefly experiencing a major uptick in fame that brought a lot of vandals to the article). Whenever protection is lifted, the article will again be vandalized. The only practical effects of protection are (1) to make it harder for legitimate editors to improve the article, and (2) to give a bad impression to readers who visit one of our most-read articles.

Fortunately, it's also one of our most-watchlisted articles. Vandalism seldom lasts long. In fact, because I'm not an admin, it takes me longer to revert, with the result that most of my attempted reversions of vandalism fail -- someone has beaten me to it. Yes, the constant vandalism and reversion is a nuisance, but it's spread among many different people, and it's definitely the lesser evil.

Please unprotect this page. JamesMLane 06:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing relevant has been added latetly, protecting the article locks out all the vandals. If we need to change something, we discusses it, agree on a solution and unlock to change it, then lock it right after. However, any administrator MUST participate in the discussion on this page if he/she wants to lock it; that way, can be locked and unlocked in a timely manner. No user sub-page stuff though.Voice of All(MTG) 08:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you VOA, but if you're proposing semi-permanent protection and filtering edits through admins, I'm against it. That cure is worse than the disease. Rhobite 06:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I hate the idea too, but its better than the page being vandalized 2 hours of the day. When Hillary or McCain become president(he..he..) and Bush is no longer president, the Moorites will get bored slow down their vandalism. But this is just ridiculous. Besides this only happens for a few pages (8/650,000 anyone?)Voice of All(MTG) 07:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

So your preference is that it remain protected for three and a half years? If not, what facts would trigger unprotection? JamesMLane 07:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if things slow down before then(and they will occasionally), the lock will be lifted. Facts that have a concensus to be added/changed will be added in.....yeah, this really sucks for current events involving the president though...Voice of All(MTG) 07:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Voice of All, you can't request a lock for every page that has vandalism [[1]]....the vandalism is usually reverted in a few minutes or less...--MONGO 07:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I never said "lock everything," but these two article have really been getting it. As I said some 8 out of 650,000 articles being locked is not that ridiculous, like .0000123% of all English articles.Voice of All(MTG) 07:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rest assured that your number of 8 in 650,000 is far off...it's more like 5 thousand articles. I'm not trying to start an argument with you my friend, but having worked on this article off and on for 8 months and in JamesMLane's case probably double that time, we both know that this page is going to get a lot of vandalism and protecting the page is not going to stop that in the long run...only time will. Page protection is fine for user pages, but not in most namespace articles...unless a particular vandal is attacking a page created by only one or two editors just to spite them....this article is the collaboration of hundreds of editors.--MONGO 07:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I know that hundreds of pages have revert wars and vandals, but only and handfull are simultaneously A)Heavily vandilized, in the top 20 of frequency B)Highly visable and notable, such as George Bush, and C)Likely to be viewed by reader of all ages. Many articles are attacked, some meet a few of this categories, but only a very small fraction meet all three.Voice of All(MTG) 07:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am not going to argue with you, but how long do you propose that this block should remain in effect? Three days, a week, a month? You see what I'm getting at...we all agree that the page gets a lot of vandalism...but not on the manner in which to stop it. In the unlikly event that semi-protect were to be put in place then that still would not eliminate all vandalism, just make it easier to corral vandalizing editors and ban them either temporarily or permanently based on their behavior pattern. The editors that RC patrol through here usually get the vandalism reverted in short order...have faith in their efforts.--MONGO 08:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Voice of All(MTG), you say that protection could be lifted "if things slow down before then(and they will occasionally)". Why should they slow down? and, more to the point, how will we know if they do if the page is locked? I see no point to saying that on the first day of every month the page gets unlocked as a test, and when, lo and behold, it's vandalized, then it's locked again for another month. As a practical matter, that amounts to permanent protection.

To the editors irked at the time spent reverting vandalism, I say: Feel free to ignore it. Feel free to not spend any of your time reverting vandalism. Those of us who want the page open must accept that one consequence will be continual vandalism, and we should be the ones fixing it. Believe me, there are plenty of people willing to do that. Those of you who resent the need for it (quite understandably) should just go off and do something else to improve this article or the whole encyclopedia. No one will fault you for that. JamesMLane 08:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

When the Dick Cheney vandalism slows down or when the page is periodically unlocked and there is not as much vandalism as now; That is how you get an idea of vandals slowing down a bit, and when a world event happens and they kick up again, it gets locked again.Voice of All(MTG) 09:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I vote the page remains locked, but not solely regulated by redwolf, that does imply ownership. As has been stated before, maybe the page should be locked and any changes run by here on the talk page by means of a vote from registered users. If somebody wants to delete the whole article and say " Bush is a !#$&!", then I fear he will not get past the voting stage here. If the page stays locked and properly debated here, hopefully we can have a working article. Banes 08:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the thought of having to wait a week before anyone can make changes. What if Bush comes out during Roberts' confirmation saying he will not stand by and watch Chuck Schumer rattle through questions about abortion, challenging Schumer to sign a deal saying that no judge should have to defend their beliefs to the Senate? That may be unlikely (read: -5% probability), but am I being told now that if something major like that were to happen I would have to go through Redwolf and a community vote to add a NPOV line about this. I hope this article is unprotected, and suggest to Redwolf that he add this article to his watchlist and jump on that rollback button instead of locking the page. Thanks. Harro5 08:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

lol sorry VOA. anyhow my vote for unprotection is based on the fact that i think the vandals can be reverted while we can also continue to edit and NPOV the article. J. Parker Stone 09:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not just the vandals, it's the damn POV-wars. People trying to see just how much POV they can get in there before someone objects and takes it out. Then a few days later, it's back in there again. In this and some other articles, some people think that winning is more important than producing a good NPOV article. Or maybe we just have too wide a range on what people consider NPOV on some subjects. At any rate, we are certainly not moving toward consensus. Maybe we need to try something else. I vote to lock it down for a while and see if there's a better way. --Shoaler 09:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Protection Poll

In Favor of Lock(6):

1. Voice of All(MTG) 17:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. RedWolf24
3. Banes
4. Shoaler
5. Wilfried Elmenreich 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
6. AjaxSerix 15:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Against Lock(13):

1. Kizzle
2. --MONGO 09:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
3. JamesMLane 09:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Rhobite
5. Harro5 11:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
6. Trey Stone
7. Szyslak
8. Ferkelparade π 09:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
9. TexasAndroid 11:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Shanes 14:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
11. jredmond 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
12. pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Hall Monitor 20:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The listing of my name by someone else (based on my prior comments) was correct. Nevertheless, I've replaced it with my own entry, so that there's no question about it. I've also added numbering for each side. JamesMLane 09:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Protection Issue

Geez...what an odd alliance the "against" group is...--MONGO 09:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be the long-time stalwarts of the article, as we all secretly want to cling to our ability to make inflammatory edits that can't quite be erased as POV, and have good old-fashioned edit-wars and heated talk-page discussions without an admin moderating them under the guise of a protected page :) Harro5 11:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I make no secret about it...! Everyone knows I take no side...I'm on my side...that's why I'm always right! (joke, of course)--MONGO 12:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

And it's getting odder every minute :) semi-permanetnly protecting a highly visible page is a bad idea, I completely agree with all the arguments brought forth above. --Ferkelparade π 09:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh horror! It looks like us poor " In favour of lock " people are losing. Time to dig in boys, we will fight them to the ends of the earth! Seriously, the lock is only to save time, and prevent vandals, if we want to go without the lock ( as the consensus seems to be) then so be it. But there must be people who are ready to fight pov and vandalism wherever they find it! These polls are a good idea, but we should leave this one up for another 24 hours, so that all the votes can come in. Banes 10:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a major problem with unaddressed vandalism that we aren't noticing currently? Wikipedia is cleared of obvious vandalism extremely quickly, and deals with persistent offenders, and the GWB article has one of the quickest response rates around. As for POV, that inevitably comes with an article on the leader of the country where the most Wikipedia editors come from, and locking the page as you propose only means that people must satisfy the POVs of the community, and then hope that admin POVs don't get in the way of adding new material. Wikipedia works best when people enter information and it is directly edited by others until a satisfactory wording comes out. I wouldn't be surprised if more valued editors looked to leave the project should there be the need to seek approval before making changes. Banes, please don't rally support behind your cause because you don't like what the majority voice is saying (this is what would happen if we had to vote on all new additions, BTW), and make all discussion positive and constructive. Thanks. Harro5 10:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's been unprotected. I don't see any exception levels of vandalism in the page history (by this article's standards) and I rather resent looseing on of my more effective antivandle tools.Geni 11:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Awww, and right when i was going to make the "Against Lock" list a little more evil. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it looks like people don't care if the page is vandalized for brief moments. We seem to have a solid concesus now; the article should remain unlocked. Oh well......I'll go back to vandal patrol mode again.Voice of All(MTG) 17:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

This is an utterly ridiculous poll. Pages are never locked because some people want them locked, but only when there is a serious vandalism problem or when there is a dispute resulting in serious edit warring. What administrator would delegate the decision to lock or unlock to a poll of editors?. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, page locking is usefull sometimes but also very annoying for editors, therefore if, by far, most people want the article unprotected and are willing to make vandal reverts then the page should be unlocked. Wikipedia is about concensus, syspos are not above that.Voice of All(MTG) 17:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

No, Tony's right. This is a ridiculous idea. Letting a small set of users decide whether or not an article can be edited at all is contrary to the project's goals, and so is making a single user an article's gatekeeper. The bouts of vandalism are numerous but easily resolved. It's a fact of life with an open project such as this. android79 18:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I want the page to be locked because of accessive vandalism, which fits policy guidelines, but my I seem to be in the minority. Since everyone's ideas other than your are ridiculous and stupid, then fine, lets never use the lock ever, why did they even make it? They must be so stupid....:-)Voice of All(MTG) 19:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

In a case like this, the kind of micro-consensus that might develop among a group of editors would be outweighed by the protection policy. Administrators must only protect pages according to that policy, because protected pages are considered harmful. If an administrator protected a page due to a poll, against the protection policy, another administrator would unprotect the page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to take a second from this discussion and say, Hi. How's life going? How's the job? I think one thing we can all agree about, whether we're for or against protection of this page, is that this page gets vandalized as often as I picture Carmen Electra in my head. An obvious solution to worst-case pages like this is to disallow all anon-ips, if they want to vandalize, they'll have to take the time to register, which would also help guard against roving ip vandalism. so PLEASE, take the time to sign up for an account (just as easy as here), vote for semi-protection, add your comment here, and tell your friends. --kizzle 18:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Editing by anon IPs isn't a bug, it's a highly valued feature. Some of our anon IP editors are much better editors than I'll ever be. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that I don't agree with. In this article and in others like it that suffer ad nauseum vandalism, it is performed almost exclusively by anon's. I have yet to see an anon edit at your level. The arguement that we should never go with a form of semi-protection in artciles like this due to some believing that it is the first step to outlawing anon editors completely, is like hearing the gun lobby argue that if we take away their personal missle launchers, we will also take away all their other guns.--MONGO 19:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

What Tony said. Also, a dedicated vandal can quickly and easily register one or more accounts. - jredmond 18:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright the page stays unprotected. Now its only protected from moving. And one other thing, when I said to leave me a message, I wasn't trying to imply ownership I was just thinking out of the admins I would be quick in responding. I mean it'd be better than leaving a message on a random admin's page who has no idea whats going on. Thanks, Redwolf24 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I got that ball rolling...the wording you used just struck me funny.--MONGO 19:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

They could just comment on its listing on Wikipedia:Protected page. - jredmond 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

how about delegating the content to a series of templates, then the article can be locked, while people who notice that it is made of templates and know how to use them can edit the templates. This would confuse stop most vandals, who'd think the page is just protected and there's nothing they can do. If any vandals get through that screen, they can only vandalize a section at a time, rather than the whole page (and only those templates that aren't protected). This would enable ppl to continue editing almost uninhibited, while greatly inhibiting vandalism. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think many people would be confused if they clicked on the top "Edit this page" link and saw an article filled only with templates. It's true that it may reduce vandalism, but it would also reduce participation by newbies. Carbonite | Talk 19:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the mass confusion is worth it, reverting vandals is better.Voice of All(MTG) 19:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that the lock is down, more waves of vandals have come, look at the history. All that you see is just see:

rv vandalism

anon (ip)

rv vandalism

anon (ip)

rv vandalism

anon (ip)

rv vandalism

anon (ip)

rv vandalism

anon (ip)......and it goes on like this, page after page...Voice of All(MTG) 19:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

you could just pretend this article belongs to a democratic politician, and leave the vandaism for a few hours/days w/o reverting it--172.135.67.208 03:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That is the way it always has been...sometimes more, sometimes less. But now, if someone has a decent edit to make, they can. While some believe in zero article protection (mostly users that have been around for a long time) others like myself think that semi-protection would benefit this project. I am opposed of course to page protection because it eliminates everyone from editing.--MONGO 20:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

My zero-tolerance measure seems to be somewhat effective. After getting 13 vandalisms in two hours, we've gone an hour without one. Let's see how it continues to go. --Golbez 22:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...'bout time an admin did this...if all their contributions history shows is vandalism or if there is even one piece of profanity...there should be an immediate 48 hour block.--MONGO 01:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It seems no other admin wanted to play bad cop while I ate. I'm going to bed in an hour; if the vandalism picks up then, then I'm really going to lose respect for my fellow admins. ZERO TOLERANCE, people. Hold the line. --Golbez 04:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I respect your stand on this issue. I hope someone will assume the helm and do the right thing...I agree that there should be zero tolerance...if vandalizing edits are repeatedly made even after warnings or if they are using profanity or similar attacks, then they should be banned. Thank you for the effort.--MONGO 04:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Golbez, with you and the other admins I can't even revert vandals before somebody else already did it. I totally agree with zero-tolerance, in fact, with this response and blocking rate I don't even think that this page needs to be locked(as long as Golbez is at the helm).Voice of All(MTG) 06:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's hard enough for us admins.Geni 23:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is different than most articles because it is about the current POTUS, which makes it a "current event" for 8 straight years. There is always something that can be improved and new changes based on what happened in the world today. Blocking should be avoided, especially when the article is so closely watched by so many people who will revert vandals. Block the vandals, not the article. Any admin who gets frustrated with this article should just ignore it for a while instead of blocking it, there are plenty of other people who will pick up the ball and watch the article. NoSeptember 03:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Downing stree memo section is too large

I dont think the downing street memo deserves such a big section of space.

I personally don't think four paragraphs and one quote is a big section of space. However, the information is also contained in the Downing Street memo article and I'm not certain it needs to be repeated here. Perhaps trim it down to one paragraph? - Thatdog 09:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The amount of space allocated to the memo is relatively small, considering it outlined the main reasons for the war. From a grammar point of view, this section - and the whole article for that matter - could be compressed into fewer, longer paragraphs by simply merging short related paragraphs. Harro5 09:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it that section coultdn't be large enough. The Downing Street Memo is the Pentagon Papers of the Iraqi war. --jonasaurus 18:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

9/11 'Goat' picture should stay.

I'm a Bush supporter and think it should stay. I'm glad he reacted the way he did. He couldn't help that he was at an elementary school, not the white house or air force 1. Better yet, let's add what John Kerry and the rest of Washington did the moment of 9/11. My call to the critics is usually something like this. What would you have expected him to do. Change into his superman costume and stop the planes from hitting? You have to remember that WTC 2 was hit before anyone knew that WTC 1 was a terrorist act. He also grounded our entire air space shortly afterwards. 24.26.28.254 (talk · contribs)

Ok, people seem to be confused about the facts on this one. As Bush was walking into the classroom, he heard about the first tower getting hit, and subsequently remarked that that was a bad pilot. When Andy Card walked up to him, he whispered that a second plane had hit the wtc, and America was under attack. What could he have done? Umm, there was another plane en route to another destination, and if the people hadn't taken down the plane themselves then its quite possible we'd have a crash site much worse than the middle of Pennsylvania. --kizzle 07:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

please note, its agsint policey to remove anyones comments from a talk page, or so im told, now to elaborate. pleaser cite sources that say bush was saying this bad pilot stuff. please note that government bush's party sources arent reallygood enouhg, becaue they have spin doctors. Gabrielsimon 07:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

“Mr. Bush arrived at the school, just before 9 am, expecting to be met by its motherly principal, Gwen Rigell. Instead he was pulled sharply aside by the familiar, bulky figure of 51-year-old Karl Rove, a veteran political fixer and trusted aide of both Mr. Bush and his father, George Sr. Mr. Rove, a fellow Texan with an expansive manner and a colorful turn of phrase, told the President that a large commercial airliner (American Flight 11) had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre . Mr. Bush clenched his teeth, lowered his bottom lip and said something inaudible. Then he went into the school.” - William Langley, “Revealed: What Really Went on During Bush’s ‘Missing Hours,’” The Telegraph, December 16, 2001.

“At 9:05 a.m., the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., stepped into the classroom and whispered into the president's right ear, ‘A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack.’” - David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After The Attacks: The Events; In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency,” The New York Times, September 16, 2001.

9:03 A.M. - United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south World Trade Center tower (2 Tower). - (Bush is notified at 9:05AM that "America is under attack.") [2]

@10:07 A.M. - United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. [3]

--kizzle 17:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did kizzle author the first comment and who removed whose comments? Was the first comment authored by a anon user? Banes 09:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

dunno who bu someone deleted my comment from this page at some point. Gabrielsimon 09:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed your post from this discussion. It wasn't a comment, it just said "proove it" in response to kizzle's opinion, and essentially was just attacking what kizzle had said. If you feel I was wrong in saying that this comment wasn't adding to the discussion, I apologise. From what I can tell from read the WP page on talk pages and their guidelines, there isn't any guideline about removing comments from talk pages, but I stand by my saying that your post wasn't a comment as much as an inflammatory challenge to kizzle. To respond to Banes, this anon user made the original comment, and I've signed it for them as such. Harro5 10:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever your political outlook, that picture is very noteworthy, one of the most famous of his presidency. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Term "ends" or "is expected to end"

There appears to be a revert war in progress disagreement over whether Bush's term will end or if it is merely expected to end. To say that it is "expected to end" implies that there is some effort going on to extend the length of his second term, which is not the case. It does not take a crystal ball to know that US presidential terms last four years. android79 17:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

One revert is a revert war?--172.172.100.101 17:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• I misread the history, sorry. Looked like one of you had reverted twice for some reason. android79 17:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

....besides this "Current term ends on January 20, 2009. He will be ineligible to run for re-election" is gramatically awkward,and refers to a future event in the past tense, if you're going to put it back, at least try and reword it--172.172.100.101 17:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Okay. How about: His second term will end on January 20, 2009. He will be ineligible to run for re-election. android79 17:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• that's fine with me--172.172.100.101 17:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "current term ends" because it means that, as of now, his term runs until January 20, 2009. If he were to resign next year, though, his second term would go down in the books as having ended in 2006, so "will end in 2009" isn't necessarily true. Still, I can live with any wording that has the 2009 date in there, for the benefit of the non-U.S. readers who don't know that the President serves a fixed term. JamesMLane 04:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is with the word "ends." "Expected to" is awkward, but "ends" can be somehow modified so that we know that his current term officially extends through Jan. '09. J. Parker Stone 04:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with James, the term is slated to end, but yes anything could happen I suppose. Anytime one says "by time X, this will happen" it should technically be "is expected to happen." But I think that is just implied, so the extra wording is not necessary. Besides, this article is already pretty darn long.Voice of All(MTG) 04:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

additions to Health

I added some meat to this section becauses it was way too short, to much information was left out. I added in some links there to other wiki articles for more info.Voice of All(MTG) 05:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Where is info on the debate radio receiver bulge Bush was wearing?

I cant find any links to the bulge question as to whether Bush was wired for prompting during the debate, nor, for that matter, any links on his dry drunk behavior patterns, or the debate as to whether the severity of his past alcoholism has left him with permanent brain damage, as evidenced in his aphasia, any links, please post below.

That's because there's no proof of what the "bulge" was...this article makes a weak attempt to at least base it's text on facts, not speculations just to raise an eyebrow.--MONGO 17:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The references you seek to "Audiogate": the mystery bulge, can be found on the article relating to President Bush's re-election campaign which is at the following link... George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004.

On a side note if you - sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) fellow users can easily know who they are responding to. BCV 17:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also the references you seek to allegations that President Bush demonstrates dry drunk behavior patterns and other past sustance abuses can be found at... George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. BCV 17:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Repeated censorship of Arthur Blessit ref

Some self-appointed censor repeatedly deletes all refs to Arthur Blessit even from this talk page, which I find to be a bit curious. The argument is that if Bush does not publically acknowledge Blessit then he is not worthy of mention. Though this argument certainly doesnt impede discussion of Bush's other falsifications of his history, eg alcoholism and National Guard service. It is certainly understandable Bush would be embarassed about Blessit, and deny him in public, preferring to cite the more respectable Billy Graham, but the article cannot be just a mouthpiece for Bush's version of history.

the book *The Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield ISBN 1585423092, discusses Blessit's connection to Bush

Arthur Blessit is a travelling Christian preacher, most famous for being involved with George W. Bush's conversion to Christianity on April 3 1984.

• Arthur Blessit's homepage
• Story of Bush's conversion
• PBS Frontline story mentioning Blessit

Not one reference to alcoholism in article, amazing!

Wikipedia is so squeaky-clean politically correct these days, one cant even say what everyone knows and is common knowledge, that Bush was an alcoholic. How pathetic. For that matter, there is not one reference to Christianity either. Jesus! Wikipedia admins are so anal.

Oh, his arrest for DUI, his admittance of previous alcohol excess, his conversations with Billy Graham...his interview with Wead...are all mentioned. Maybe a copy of National Enquirer will have the unencyclopedic spin you desire, but this, again, is not a cheap tabloid.--MONGO 17:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

People know different things, so "everyone knows" is a poor basis for facts. This is why we use sources. Not sure what admins have to do with anything, articles are edited by all editors, not just admins. Friday 16:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So stop your whining and fix it. Jeez. --Golbez 17:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly there, under the early life section. If its not, I guess the sky is pink and not blue anymore.;-)Voice of All(MTG) 17:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

um, why would it only be under early life, alcoholism isn't something that goes away, even of we're supposed to believe that he hasn't had a drink since he's been the president, it doesn't mean he's been "cured" unless of course you think his becoming a born again christian makes him un-alcoholic somehow--172.128.202.114 01:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Middle Initial?

Would it be better to put George W. Bush's middle initial in the article instead of his FULL middle name since thats the name he uses more often? George W. Bush or George Walker Bush? -Anon

No. The W stands for Walker. People are likely to want to know that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Blessit link not controversial

some ignorant admins apparently want to whitewash any link to Arthur Blessit, Bush's connection with Blessit has been well documented, eg on PBS Frontline, and in the book The Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield ISBN: 1585423092

"Mansfield details later encounters with evangelists Arthur Blessit and Billy Graham that he believes were pivotal in Bush's spiritual formation."

• Unless Bush actually comes out and says Blessit played a role in his conversion (as far as I know, he hasn't), then there is not enough fact to go on to add this reference. Bush has publicly acknowledged Graham, and Graham only, as the evangelist most critical in his coverting to Christianity. This article is about fact, not the thoughts of an author. Harro5 09:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Funny, have you read the book? How do you know the book is not fact based? Also, what about the PBS Frontline reference? Bush is certainly not the last word for his own history. If that were so none of the other controversies re his alcoholism, drug abuse, AWOL behavior etc would ever be known. Bush discusses a bible meeting prior to the Graham meeting, in spring of 1984, the same week as Blessit's revival stop in Midland Tx. where Bush heard Blessit on the radio and requested a private meeting.

• The Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield ISBN 1585423092

[4]

In his book “A charge to keep my journey to the White House” by George W. Bush pages 136-139, he tells in quite some detail about a visit with Rev. Billy Graham in Maine where he says “Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul”. Mr. Bush goes on to say about Jesus, “I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ. I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me. I was comforted to know that through the Son, I could find God's amazing grace, a grace that crosses every border, every barrier and is open to everyone. Through the love of Christ's life, I could understand the life-changing powers of faith. I began reading the Bible regularly. Don Evans talked me into joining him and another friend, Don Jones, at a men's community Bible study. The group had first assembled the year before, in spring of 1984, [that was the spring of Blessit's week meeting in Midland]

Honestly, what difference does it make? And the Blessit page is just a tiny stub. What does this add to the article. We already know that a Graham's work began his "conversion." What does Blessit add to this? Will I understand Bush better if I know this fact(I guess) about a preacher I don't even know anything about and Wikipedia says nothing about him either?Voice of All(MTG) 18:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, what difference do any facts make to an encyclopedia? Blessit precedes Graham by one year. Though Bush is apparently embarassed re Blessit, one would think the true cause of his conversion would be worth mentioning rather than the fake PR smokescreen.

Added info about the middle-finger incidents

I checked the archives of the discussions and saw no mention of it, other than someone complaining about a photo of it being there. Anyway, this stuff's incredibly well-known. And it's a historical fact: He holds the record of being the first President to have been seen giving the middle finger, both before and during office.

Everyone knows of the photo of him giving the camera guy the finger when he was governor of Texas. But also, there's an undated video on Jay Leno of President Bush flipping off the media while in office [5]. This is relevant, because it affects the public's perception of him. So, I put it in the "Public perception and assessments," section. There was also a third report of him flipping off the media, but there was no video or photo of it, so I left it out. 69.138.24.96 07:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Rude Gesture

Under the domestic section it says that Bush holds the distinction of being the only U.S president to be seen using the middle finger, before election and during office. Can anyone tell me if this is a joke or if it is actually true? Thanks.Banes 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

a search on google images shows a kerryfinger.jpg image purportedly showing Kerry doing the flipping the bird Gesture. Both Bush and Clinton are also shown doing the heavy metal salute, aka sign of the devil, aka Hook 'em Horns.

So, nothing on the middle finger then? I dont know about the sign of the devil, because the hook 'em horns gesture, according to the link you provided is a University of Austin, Texas, fan symbol. The photo shows Bush using it at a sports event. Anyway that has nothing to do with him giving the finger. Banes 08:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The new show on Comedy Central, Mind of Mencia, the first or maybe second episode ended with a clip of Bush giving someboey? the finger. No hint that it was not real. Circumstances of the clip were not explained. Gzuckier 14:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The clip is real; it was before an interview on a Texas tv station, while he was governor. I'm not sure how encyclopedic it is, though....

There are two clips of George W. Bush flipping the bird. The first is when he was Governor, wearing a lousy blue-grey suit, and he gives a quick little shot of the finger, followed by his trademark snicker [6]. The second, more recent, on-film fingering (or was it a 'thumbing', as some commentators maintain?) took place last month in front of reporters and was on the Jay Leno show [7]. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I crossed that out. feel free to unstrike it if you wish. Redwolf24 15:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I just Got rid of it. No need for that kind of stuff here. this is supposed to be a discussion not a place to say i hate so and so. <Eraser>

"What if they're New Here?"

"What if they're New Here?": Is this line meant to be in anti-vandalism header for this article?

It was quietly added last night. I've removed it. If someone wants to ask the question, here on the talk page is the place for it. Not in the comments in the article itself. TexasAndroid 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Movement to impeach Bush? Give me a break, that's not neutral

Folks, you might as well have a link to "Nazi", I mean give me a break.

The movement to impeach Bush is NOT mainstream. Just as the 9/11 conspiracy is not mainstream. The former and certainly the latter do not deserve a spot on this page.

I was messaged by an editor here that these links have been "voted on" but I do believe that a majority here are not of the opinion that Bush is a good president, as most internet precedents are.

This is FINE by me, but if you are going to have links to other things about Bush, fine, keep the author link, but delete the movement to impeach him, that is absurd and irrelevant, and certainly not mainstream or NEUTRAL. unsigned comment by 24.206.237.159

I have to agree with the movement to impeach link...it isn't mainstream or neutral. The F911 link was decided as being substantive enough due to the widespread popularity of the film.--MONGO 12:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm removing it if its still there.Voice of All(MTG) 17:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This all seems rather inconsistent to me, considering the recent minor dispute regarding Tom Cruise and the inclusion of the non-neutral website "TomCruiseIsNuts.com (Humorous site chronicling Tom Cruise's statements)". See my comments on the talk page there, if interested. Hall Monitor 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the link on the Cruise article shouldn't be there either...this isn't some gossip rag or one that should be covering far out and incredibly unlikely events as a Bush impeachment (based on the evidence currently on hand). Not one senator or congressman is seriously pushing for an impeachment of Bush...it's a far left pipe dream.--MONGO 18:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Until the threat of impeachment is a significant aspect of the public discourse, we shouldn't include it here. --kizzle 20:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Bush's approval rating has dropped well below 50%. Are we allowed to start a movement now? Or do the American people still have their voices silenced?

Jeez, chill out people. The "movement to impeach Bush" is not mainstream at all. NOBODY is earnestly talking about it. Not one member of congress is pushing for it. This isn't denying free speech. And Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. It is NOT what wiki is all about. Now, plummeting approval ratings, that's valid. But trying to worm in some fringe movement about impeaching him is intellectually dishonest. - JDoorjam 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC), former Kerry-Edwards staffer.

Uh "NOBODY" is clear POV disinformation. But the people who are talking about aren't U.S. Senators or Representatives. So, yeah, impeachment is off the table.Arnoldlover 02:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if that is steve again :)Voice of All(MTG) 02:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out some more disinformation. There are certainly Representatives speaking of impeachment, and a significant number of representatives have filed a "Resolution of Inquiry", the first step in the impeachment process. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

And regarding another piece of disinformation: "The "movement to impeach Bush" is not mainstream at all. NOBODY is earnestly talking about it.": [8], [9] The mere fact alone that zogby did a poll on this is notable. The numbers are too. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is not the point

We report nonneutral statements and link to nonneutral sites all the time. If a particular aspect of opposition to Bush is notable, it should be reported in this article. The call for impeachment has certainly gone far beyond the stage of one crackpot in his basement putting up a website, but it still hasn't become important enough to be mentioned here. If it gains in importance, though, then it should be mentioned, even though it's not neutral. JamesMLane 17:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence

The sentence fragment I removed was due to the use of the words "some allege" in response to the press release of Bush' DUI conviction being a timely press release to influence the election...the sentence I removed stated: and some allege that part of the press deliberately waited to disseminate the information to the public in order to swing the election. If someone can substantiate this then it still would be better placed in the daughter article here.--MONGO 10:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was by far the most popular theory of the time by the "right-wing" press and a few "non-partisan" groups. Also, "allege" is used a few times in the article and is somewhat NPOV...

(semi-blog link follows)

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/102004g.asp

Although I think it goes better in the article as it helps keep the section centered a bit POV-wise.... but YMMV --RN 16:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

An Rfc on the passages discussing drug and alcohol was recently performed and we tried to keep counterbalances either way relegated to the daughter article...I don't disagree with the sentence you had, and in fact am inclined to believe it was true, but if we start putting that in, then counterarguments start to return and the entire section ends up diverging away from the original Rfc...the Rfc is [here] if you wish to read all about it...--MONGO 19:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see your point but I think you could mention that it (the timing) was just "controversial" and then do the real work in the daughter article. Also, your original proposal seems a bit more NPOV than the current state which has a bit more (albiet subtle) anti-bush stuff in there that weighs it down a bit. I'm pretty impressed with the article though... its too bad that the Microsoft pages don't get the same treatment. --RN 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The article hasn't had any major changes in a while...as always, don't be discouraged to add whatever you see fit so long as you know that there has, at least, been a great deal of bickering back and forth since it was first written and it is becoming more NPOV all the time...at least that is what we hope for.--MONGO 02:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Anagram

I apologize that I have to bring this subject here, but I believe in consistency and others a promoting something quite juvenile that it must be brought up here. About 4 editors, 2 might be sock puppets, on Spiro Agnew insist on adding an anagram stating "grow a penis." Responsible editors have reverted them but they insisted that it is appropriate for the article for various reasons and started a poll. I don't think anagrams are appropriate for an article, for instance, it is noted that "George Bush = He bugs Gore."; "George W Bush = He grew bogus." and "George Herbert Walker Bush = Huge berserk rebel warthog." If we go down that way, we will start including anagrams on all the pages (which seems quite juvenile). If you agree that this is inappropriate, please go to that page and vote. --Noitall 14:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Bob Saget doesn't have the anagram "Got Babes". Or "Full House's Bob Saget" and "He's Got Soulful Babes". Or "The Olsen Twins" and "Slow, Thin Teens". Just a thought. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nor does the article on Jimbo Wales present any of the many choice possibilities ... what an outstandingly anagrammatic name. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gay Appointment

There is a section in the article under Domestic Policy about Diversity and Civil rights that contains a sentence noting that Bush is the first Republican to appoint an openly gay man to his administration. This is true, but the sentence is still misguided. This section should concentrate on Bush's overarching stance on the issues of civil rights, not the token exceptions. Painting the Bush administration as one that is unusually inclusive of homosexuals (as this sentence attempts to do) is horribly misleading.

My beef is with the big deal it makes out of the fact that Bush appointed an openly gay man to a government position. However, there are numerous reasons why this is not a big deal. Firstly, a President makes thousands of appointments during his tenure. Secondly, presidents before him (Clinton) have appointed gay people in much larger numbers. And third, it should be noted that he is really one of the first republican presidents with even the opporunity to appoint gay men. The last time a Republican was in office was 1992, when tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual community was at a very different stage than it is today. Bush is almost certainly not the first Republican to appoint someone who was gay, but is the first to appoint someone who is OPENLY gay. Openly gay politicians were a lot harder to come by in the late 80s and early 90s, and Bush's Republican predecessors shouldn't be faulted for that, nor should Bush be praised for it.

I thus compare it to George H.W. appointing C. Thomas to the supreme court. Should he be praised for appointing a black supreme court justice? He is currently the first and only Republican administration to do so. Yet this is not noteworthy enough to appear in his article, because the *real* civil rights breakthrough was with L. Johnson's appointment of Thurgood Marshall.

Bush's record on support of the gay and lesbian community shows a huge amount of intolerance. To make special note of the one small act of inclusiveness he has made (which in the reference links is alleged to be little more than a token concession to the Log Cabin Republicans, campaign contriubuters), without context or addendum, is misleading and dishonest in spirit.

Please change or delete the sentence so that the sentiment is not so easily misconstrued. Sdauson 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with Sdauson on this. THe sentence is misleading, unless it is acompanied by an explaination of why it is misleading. --jonasaurus 18:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how The whole paragraph is about how he has not been a supporter of Gay Marriage Rights. I do not see why it distorts the picture to point out that he has appointed an openly gay person to his staff. Who are you to say that person is a token member of the staff, calling someone merely a token appointment sure sounds like POV to me. --AjaxSerix 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the assertion that it's a token appointment is largely unsubstantiated, and shouldn't be put in the article. But mentioning the fact that Bush has made an appointment of an openly gay person (Bill Clinton made over 150) without putting it in its true context (as outlined above) is misleading, and an obvious attempt to portray Bush in a more favorable light than is deserved on this subject. I would move that the whole sentence simply be taken out of the article. It is not an important or sybolic facet of Bush or his administration. Sdauson 19:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

While I do see your reason for pessimism on it, I think that the first appointment of an openly gay person by a republican President as a significant step forward for Gay rights. Token or not it means that at the very least Bush saw some value politically in appealing to homosexuals, which is a broken ceiling. I think the first person is noteworthy enough. It might be worth it to add though that he picked him to be the AIDS czar, which may highlight the sterotypical view he took in doing so.--AjaxSerix 19:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Then why is George H.W. Bush not to be commended for appointing Clarence Thomas, the first African American to be appointed to the supreme court by a Republican? Or Bill Clinton commended for being the first Democrat to appoint a female justice to the same court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? It seems like these should be MUCH more important and symbolic acts, as a President gets only one or two nominations to the high court if he's lucky, as opposed to one of the thousands of general appointments a President may make over his career, such as AIDS czar. I mean, hell, why don't we put the fact that George W. Bush is the first Republican president from Texas under the age of 70 with a daughter who owns a Toyota as being indicative of unusual support for foreign trade?

I guess I see the importantance of it being in the traditional opposition of the republican party to gay rights. It is a crack in the wall.--AjaxSerix 19:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the passages about the alleged "gay appointment" are misleading. I particularly agree with the comment above about the misleading sentence. For these reasons, I think that a factual error disclaimer should be added.

That claim is factual, but it may not be NPOV. There is already a POV warning on this article. There is no need for a factual error disclaimer. android79 19:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. These claims have never been verified by a credible source.

It's cited directly in the article: [10]. android79 19:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do you dispute the reliability of this source? android79 19:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Android79 the statement is factual. The complaint you are making is covered with the Neutrality tag.

Just because the article has an NPOV tag on it doesn't mean we shouldn't be continuously be trying to make it a more neutral article. Neutrality tags aren't a license to put whatever you want into an article. Also, please sign your comments. Sdauson 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The last post was me I forgot to sign... always do that... I agree the wording could be made more neutral, my comment was about the person who kept adding the FACTUAL Dispute tag along with the NPOV. I was saying that the second box was not necessary.--AjaxSerix 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

WOW it seems like all arguments related to this article are always long and drawn out... anyway I tried to put the sentence in context and removed the disputed tag as it was pretty silly (this article seems to have iron-clad references for EVERYTHING) (2 edit conflicts yikes) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Better, but I would still like to know why the fact that George H. W. Bush was the first Republican president to appoint a black supreme court justice is not mentioned on his page. Is that fact not significant for all the same reasons presented in the defense of the gay appointment fact? Why is this one more significant than the other? Sdauson 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this page is run by young Republicans, fascists, and Tony Blair-worshippers. You didn't beat the Germans after all. --Paul Laremy, anonymous user

It's good that you are all growed up about things. see...Godwins Law--AjaxSerix 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentence used to state that Micheal Guest was the first "openly gay ambassador to be appointed by a U.S. President and have his appointment confirmed by Congress." Clinton performed a recess appointment of an openly gay ambassador prior to this. The sentence was placed there as the only conversation about Bush's stand on homosexuality was totally negative and the addition of the Micheal Guest ambassadorship was added for balance.--MONGO 20:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to tell me that the conversation about Bush's stand on homosexuality SHOULDN'T be totally negative? Do you have any knowledge of his history and record on gay rights? Sdauson 20:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon's insertion of disputed

Unless he can point out what fact is incorrect, it will be reverted, and he will be blocked for violating 3RR. The dispute has to be pointed out before the tag can remain. The presence of a dispute is only a matter of record when you put forth the effort to explain it here. So go for it. --Golbez 19:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't answered my question, and given the last comment, it's pretty clear he's just here to stir up trouble. android79 19:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Longest page ever

I just archived this talk page today, and with one little conflict over the tiniest thing, it is now soooo long again. Good thing I created the empty archive. Looks like it will be needed soon. If someone wouldn't mind doing this, it would make this page a lot more manageable. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)