Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 45

message: From the article (3rd paragraph under heading:George Walker Bush: "The weapons of mass destruction that the Coalition of the Willing invaded to capture have been found, but not in great quantities."  -what was the quality of the weapons found?  "...Charles Delfor (ph)[Charles Duelfer], the CIA's weapons inspector tells us the weapons are all pre- Gulf War vintage shells, no longer effective weapons...-- Wolf [Blitzer]."  source http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/21/sitroom.03.html
-moreover..."But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.
They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.
He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.
"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.
And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201475.html
---
Also from the article: "These chemical agents, specifically Sarin gas have been used at times against US troops by Iraqi insurgents." -I would like to see a source that supports this.  At the bottom of this article, this point is directly refuted "No chemical weapons are known to have been used so far in Iraq's insurgency." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
Leaving out this apparently vital information would likely mislead the reader into false conclusions about these WMD claims.
 open_mind 18:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WMD's Found Misleading or Incomplete

message: I am now going to update this page to include Bush's to the current middle east conflict, as well as a complete list of all the reasons why he should receive the nobel peace prize--172.161.55.39 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (chuckle) But seriously, can we please put in the "stop doing this shit" quote? --Jobrahms 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle East Crisis 

message: The article states,
"Bush is the first Republican President to appoint an openly gay man (Israel Hernandez, assistant secretary at the Department of Commerce) to his Administration."
This is underneath Bush's "Domestic Policy" section, next to his stance on gay rights. It seems like an attempt to portray President Bush as progressive in appointing an openly gay man to his administration. I feel this is misleading, however, as the page for Israel Hernandez explicitly says that while it's not a secret, he's not that open about it, and the President was not informed of his sexuality until after his appointment. I've picked on this fact before for being insignificant, but the scope and structure of the article has changed a lot since then and wondered what you guys think. Sdauson 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's notable enough for general inclusion, but it would probably be best to include the note that Bush was unaware of Hernandez's orientation at the time of his appointment. Kasreyn 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Know what? Scratch that...  This appears to be the Israel Hernandez article's only source on the issue of when Bush knew about Hernandez, or even that he's gay at all, and it doesn't appear to be a very reliable one.  NY Daily News is fit for reporting on the trashy affairs of pop celebrities.  I don't think they're a reliable source for this article.  They claim "a source" told them, which is essentially "a little bird told me" rewritten.  I'd say strike the mention of the appointment entirely:  we don't even have a reliable source that Hernandez is gay.  Kasreyn 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Gay Appointment 

message: Why was George W. Bush's history with James Bath / Salaam Bin Laden / Arbusto removed from the main page???
The page looks like it was rewritten by the Republican Party.
``````holygrailale
:Likely because it isn't verifiable. Per WP:LIVING, we have to be very careful about presenting unverifiable, negative information about living people, as it may damage their reputation. A tendency towards a conservative bias when discussing a Republican is a natural, though unfortunate, side-effect of this. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) in the future. It automatically dates it and provides a convenient like to your user page. ---DrLeebot 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden / James Bath history 

message: I have again removed this section: "Bush's second term saw several major events. In early 2005 Bush campaigned to reinsert the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo by signing the Palm Sunday Compromise, igniting a national debate over the right to die and federal intervention. In the summer, the chief of staff of his vice-president, Scooter Libby, was indicted by a federal jury in the Valerie Plame Scandal and his chief ally in the House, Tom Delay, resigned after a similar indictment by a prosecutor in Texas. In August of the same year Hurricane Katrina devastated the American Southeast, leaving New Orleans in partial ruins. The president, along with FEMA were criticized by many for an allegedly slow response. In the winter of that year it was revealed pubicly that the NSA was engaged in phone wiretaps which were subsequently challenged on constitutional grounds.". My reasons are:
*1)Schiavo is already mentioned in the article and is not again needed.
*2)Scooter Libby doesn't belong in the Bush article
*3)Tom Delay idem ditto
*4)Katrina, while the criticism, with counter claims might be worthy to include, the current section is too one sided. When expanded it probably doesn't belong here anymore but in the relevant articles pertaining to Katrina.
*5)NSA same thig really.
*6)The whole thing certainly doesn't belong in one great heap at the start of the second term section as was the case here.
I would like to remind people that this is an encyclopaedia, and this particular article is supposed to be a biographical entry on G. W. Bush and not everything he says, does, is alleged to have done etc. belongs in here. Good rule of thumb, imagine reading this article in ten, even 25 years or more. Is it going to be of any worth then? If not, then it isn't now. Look up a good article in other reputable encyclopaediae on such figures as Washington, Napoleon, Eisenhower, Einstein to name but a few to see what it means to write an encyclopaedic article.--Kalsermar 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for removal of section and general concern 

message: I can't edit this because I'm an anonymous user.  The first paragraph says he purchased and managed the Texas Rangers.  He was just the team's owner.  While his ownership duties required him to do things that would be considered "managing" in most professions other than baseball (where there is a specific job that goes with the title of manager), you can't really say he managed the Texas Rangers.  That conjures up images of W in a uniform, making pitching changes on the mound and arguing with umpires.  Maybe "purchased and owned" or "owned and operated" would sound better.
:Changed, thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Texas Rangers

message: Should add it?
:Neither it nor the private comments to Blair are broadly noteworthy or significant enough for this article, which is the top-level article in the series and should primarily be a summary of lower-level articles, like the "2nd term" article, that handle the significant details. -Silence 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a story is newsworthy doesn't make it encyclopedia-worthy. Think of it this way: 20 years from now, will anyone care about this? (We really need to make a template for that.) ---DrLeebot 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  probably not a good standard, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  My personal expectation is that in twenty years, this article would have a significantly more negative take on Bush, because I expect history to judge his actions and find them wanting.  But to edit the article based on such an expectation would be POV and OR.  Kasreyn 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've created a template in my user space with more general wording here. You can reference it with . Leave a note on my talk page if you think we can word it better. ---DrLeebot 13:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merkel back rub

message: I'd like to remove the phrase "he belongs to one of the most politically influential American families" from the intro.  I think that goes without saying since the statement is immediately followed by mention of his father and brother.  Any thoughts or objections?  --ElKevbo 00:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although the mere mention of the offices held by his father and brother does not relay the true importance of the Bush family in U.S. politics, especially in the Republican party. I believe they've been strong supporters and financers of the party throughout the 20th century, though this must be discussed in "Early life" and not the intro. This Fire Burns Always  01:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That level of detail isn't necessary for the intro, though. We have plenty of room in the overall article to add such details; the lead section is currently somewhat overlong, and removing this sentence is a good start to trimming it down. If the information is important, then move it to the first paragraph of the "Early life" section, where there's plenty of room to explain why the Bush family is such a big deal. Good compromise, ne? -Silence 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: In general, it is bad writing style to add a very long quote - even if it is part of an inaugural address.  Does this quote in the article add anything?  Also, the formatting is terrible.  All in all, it detracts from the article, imo.jawesq 15:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second address is key because it talks about the central theme of Bush's agenda. Obviously we can trim it down, but its important to include it. Its like Kennedy's 1st speech - gives a lot of info on what ideas, philosophy the president focuses on. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always  15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be trimmed down.  It is too long and the formatting needs help.jawesq 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this?
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world...The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it....From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
I also recommend a 'blockquote' rather than the current formating, since an indented block quote is generally what is used in any academic paper (or encyclopedia article) for a quote this long.  Three periods (...) are used inside a quote, for omission of a portion of the quote.  Three periods are not used at the end of a quote. jawesq 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah it looks good. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always  16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Quotes

message: I find it astonishing that Bin Laden isn't mentioned once in this article. Considering that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 (by a million miles the central domestic event of Bush's presidency), it's amazing that this article doesn't even mention Bin Laden. I can't help but think that the reason for this omission is that, frankly, any mention of Bin Laden would reflect badly on Bush (because it would inevitably remind the reader that Bin Laden remains a free man). Despite Bush's vow to get Bin Laden "dead or alive," the fact remains that almost 5 years after 9/11, Bin Laden roams free and regularly issues videos and statements, rallying Al Qaeda members. This blatant omission just proves for a lot of us that the Bush article has been heavily sanitized by pro-GOP authors to remove any mention of Bush's flaws and shortcomings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.202 (talk • contribs) 18:01, July 26, 2006
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --ElKevbo 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think it's anti-bush bias to not include Bin Laden. A mention of Bin Laden would remind the reader of the attacks of Sept 11th and the threat we face with islamic extremist terrorism. Bush's continual fight against this is a big part of his presidency and a big reason for his support. I think it should be included. 2nd Piston Honda 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think it's pro-Bush to leave him out, as it would remind people that Bush failed to prevent the attacks, and now has failed to capture him. ("Reality has a known liberal bias." - Colbert). Either way, we agree that he should go in. ---DrLeebot 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why No Mention of Bin Laden In This Article? 

message: He was also filmed briefly massaging German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the same G-8 meeting. These two events caused critics to question Bush's sincerity and professional behavior. 
I reverted the above snippet as it represents original research. The link intimates that the massage was a "gaffe", but there is no credible source for that conclusion given. The piece is actually a self-congratulatory piece about the power of the press and the internet, not about the incident itself. It also does not mention any criticism or give any indication the President's sincerity or professionalism were brought into question as a result - except by the author of the article. Also see discussion above.Michael Dorosh 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German massage 

message: Can we un-protect it now?? It's been semiprotected for god knows how long!!! --TheM62Manchester 07:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to recommend against that. Even being semi-protected, it still gets vandalised on a very regular basis. When the flood gates are leaking, the last thing you want to do is open them up completely. ---DrLeebot 13:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that it should remain protected, but i can only imagine how long it must be before we can unprotect it
at the very least it will be a few years. this isnt one of wikipedia's brightest stars Jds10912 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: This article includes coverage of Bush buying a share of the Texas Rangers. However, there's zero mention of the huge controversy that was involved in this deal at the time. Namely, The Ballpark in Arlington stadium deal that was paid for by the taxpayers (and was controversial because this taxpayer-funded venture was seen as corporate welfare to pad the pockets of the wealthy owners of the Rangers, including Bush). I really think this article ought to touch on this aspect of the deal; it was a major controversy here in Texas. I get the feeling that if Clinton had been involved in such a deal that at least 1,000 words would be devoted to this topic in his main article.
::I get the feeling that if Clinton had been involved in such a deal that at least 1,000 words would be devoted to this topic in his main article. Only if the deal involved some oral lovin'.
=====Complete Agreement=====
Much of Bush's past, including the oil companies and insider trading scandal at Harkin have been "Hanitized" for his protection.  I've read various rationales for this, including lack of verification, etc.  The public should know these things, they are in the public domain and are well documented.  It's merely Republican censoring to keep them out.
Holygrailale 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballpark in Arlington Sweetheart Deal

message: Much of Bush's past, including the oil companies and insider trading scandal at Harkin have been "Hanitized" for his protection.  I've read various rationales for this, including lack of verification, etc.  The public should know these things, they are in the public domain and are well documented.  It's merely Republican censoring to keep them out.
Holygrailale 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Agreement

message: This page is hereby protected due to back and forth edit warring over a few different sections. Edit warring is not allowed, especially on prominent articles such as this. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Once your disputes have been resolved, you can request unprotection at WP:RfPP or contact me. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Because of the huge amount of information and links on this page, I thought I might try spacing it out a bit, adding an extra line between paragraphs. It makes it longer obviously but I think it's easier to read. Feel free to change it back if you want to, whoever, but I think on balance it makes it look a little better. C i d 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: I don't think there are enough templates at the head of this article. Could we consider adding a few more? -- 198.20.40.50 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: A few points on these edits:
*It is misleading to mention the Clinton administration when introducing the ban, since the ban was a result of a 1995 act of Congress with which the administration was not connected.  Arkansas Representative Jay Dickey slipped it into an appropriations bill.
*It's a good idea to link to the article on the tax cut.  Nothing wrong with that.
*But in a biographical article on George W. Bush there is no point to going into the differences in rates for each different bracket before and after the 2001 cut, since that is done better and in more detail in the article on the tax cut.
*There is a section in the edit in question that reads:
"At the time it was reported that this tax cut would reduce federal revenues by $1.35 trillion over a 10-year period. However, that prediction assumed zero economic growth. In reality, as of August 2006, federal revenues are significantly higher than they were before the tax cut, and millions more persons are employed. Some see this as a vindication of Bush's policy.
*This section seems somewhat misinformed.  There's little direct connection between unemployment rates and government receipts, so there's little point in mentioning them together here.  The prediction was that over a decade the cuts would reduce federal revenues to $1.35 trillion less than they would have been without the cuts, not that federal revenues would be lower in 2006 or 2011 than they were in 2001.  So it's foolish to be surprised or see any inconsistency in that tax receipts are higher in August 2006 than before the 2001 tax cut.  For tax receipts to decline or remain the same, either the tax cuts would have to be positively massive or population and economic growth would have to suddenly cease.
*"Some see this as a vindication of Bush's policy" is a weaselly phrase.
*There's nothing wrong with the edits to the last paragraph in the changes in question.
<BR>--Mr. Billion 06:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits regarding the 2001 tax cuts 

message: —National Security
Fact:  Bush oversaw the greatest security failure in the history of the United States.  And don't tell me there was nothing he could have done about it.  The fact is Bush received a memo that said 'Bin Laden determined to attack the United States in the summer of 2001'  The Clinton administration acted upon the same type of intelligence and was able to thwart a planned terrorist attack in LA's airport in 1998.  We never heard about it.  That's the way it's supposed to be.
Because Bush was still on vacation at the time of the warning, I guess he ignored it.  When Bush returned from the longest vacation ever taken by a president of the United States, on Sept 11, 2001 he decided to go to a Florida school on a campaigning event.  Before entering the school Bush was informed of the 1st tower being hit and he still decided to continue with his publicity stunt in that Florida classroom.  When he was informed of the 2nd tower being hit, he froze like a deer caught in headlights and did absolutely nothing as time passed by.   That is a failure to lead in a time of crisis.
Did Bush take responsibility for this failure?  Nope.  He blamed it on the CIA and his advisers.
Iraq has been a debacle from the start and the war has made America LESS safe   
Fact: Iraq had no WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, and the US is taking 90% of the cost and causality burden of the war
Fact: Bush miscalculated on the number of troops needed to secure the peace  
Fact: Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi blamed the deaths of the US-Iraqi soldiers on the incompetence of the Bush administration 
Fact: Report today indicates the US is still unprepared to handle a bio-terrorist attack.  What the hell are we waiting for?
Fact: Bush cut health care benefits for war veterans and supports a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families--in wartime
This hasn't been proven yet, but most likely Bush's incompetence led to tons of missing explosives in Iraq which are now likely in the hands of terrorists.  Yes, the US destroyed hundreds of tons of explosives, but a few hundred tons are still unaccounted for and it only takes 1 pound of these explosives to blow up an airplane. These explosives were safely guarded by the UN until Bush invaded Iraq and took over watch of the explosives.
Fact:  Bush refuses to pass a bill that forces airlines to scan the cargo on commercial airlines (carry-on and passengers get checked, but not the checked cargo).  With all these explosives missing, does this fact make you feel safe?
Fact:  Bush has failed to reduce global nuclear proliferation,  and he still has no plan for this
Values
Fact: Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL for nearly one year.  During his time in the Guard he refused to take a drug test (read: cocaine) or answer any questions about drug use.  By joining the National Guard, Bush was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
Fact: Bush's National Guard records are 'lost'
Fact: Bush was arrested in 1976 for a DUI
Fact: Bush's Texas driving records are 'lost'
Fact: Bush graduated from college with a low C average.  He was a cheerleader at Yale.  Seriously.
Fact: Bush is the first President in history to enter office with a criminal record
Fact: Bush is the all time US and world record holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations
Fact: Bush is close friends with Kenneth Lay (of Enron)
Fact: Bush is the first president in US history to have the UN remove the US form the Human Rights Commission
Fact: Bush is the first president in US history to refuse UN election inspectors
Fact: Bush's administration was found to be directly responsible for prison abuse in Iraq
Fact: Bush did not attend any of the funerals of the100,000+ American soldiers killed in Iraq, but he did attend more than 43 fund raising events of the Republican party over the same time period
The Halliburton scandal is not official yet, but charging American tax payers nearly $100 for a can of soda for our troops just isn't right.  Too much of a coincidence that Cheney's is the former CEO of Halliburton. (The FBI is currently investigating this one)
And of course we have the 2000 election where Bush refused to allow a recount in Florida and instead insisted on having his Daddy's friends in the Supreme Court decide the election, thus defeating the basic principle of democracy as outlined by America's founding fathers.  Anyone who does not suspect foul play here is in a dangerous state of denial. 
Economy/Health Care
No matter what spin the Bush administration wants to put on it, his economic policy has failed and we have not 'turned a corner'
Fact: Nearly 2 million jobs LOST since Bush took office
Fact: Bush supports the outsourcing of American jobs overseas and gives a tax break to American companies that do so!   
Fact: Bush is the first president in nearly a century to have a net job LOSS during his term in office.  The last president to do this was Herbert Hoover, who, in case you didn't know, was president during the GREAT DEPRESSION.  
Fact: Under Bush's leadership we had the highest unemployment rate in nearly a decade.  Under Clinton, we had the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years
Fact: Job creation from Jan thru Sept 2004 fell well below the forecasted amount
Fact: Bush set an economic record for most foreclosures and private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period
Fact: Bush presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history
Fact: The Bush family has close business ties to the Saudi Royal family... hmmm, maybe this explains the fact about gas prices?  or why we don't invade Saudi Arabia?
Fact: During Bush's first term Health Care costs have increased while quality of service has decreased and this trend continues today 
Fact: Millions of Americans lost their health care plans during Bush's 4 years in office and Bush has no plan for changing his failed Health Care policy 
Fact: Bush turned a record surplus from the Clinton administration into the largest annual deficit in US history.  This led the International Monetary Fund (which bails out basket case economies) to warn Bush of a fiscal melt down with global repercussions.  Poor economic planning and fighting expensive wars...this is how countries go bankrupt.  Look at what happened to Russia after they invaded Afghanistan.  Too bad Bush is not exactly a history buff.
Fact: Bush gave 80% of his tax 'cuts' to the wealthiest 1% of America.  This means Snoop Dog and Shaquille O'Neal get a larger tax break than people like you and me.  This is why the Bush economy fails.  He doesn't put spending money in the pockets of the people that need it.
Education:
Running the country is like running a business.  One major problem with your boy Bush is that he failed in every business he ever ran, most of them ending in bankruptcy... this includes his oil drilling business that went under because he couldn't find any oil... in TEXAS!  
In business, it's a fact that if you don't invest in training then your employees will not be able to out perform their competition.  In the United States, if we don't invest in education then the people running our businesses will not be educated enough to out perform competition from other countries.  
Fact: China has steadily gained on the US in the Global Economy since Bush took over.  This is a direct result of all his cuts to our education system.   
Fact: Over the past 4 years, college tuition has increased while funding for financial aid and scholarships decreased
Fact: Bush underfunds his own education initiative (more on that below) 
Economic might is far superior to military might... not that China doesn't have a strong military. 
What's going to happen when China takes control of the Global Economy and starts putting restraints on trade with the United States?  Is Bush going to attack China?  With the horrible results we see every day from Bush's poor planning and unrealistic strategy in Iraq, I'd hate to see what would happen if we attacked a real country like China.  Maybe that's why Bush is allowing North Korea's dictator to keep his WMDs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.165.193 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 August 2006
:::How's everything in Flint, Mr. Moore? :-)
I think it is worth noting that during hearings about the mentioned memo, it was maintained that the actual content revealed nothing actionable about upcoming attacks.  In fact, it was noted that the title was misleading.  Since the matter was not pursued further by investigators, we should be careful not to read too much into that ominous headline. Criddic 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grievances from 69.134.165.193

message: In the "Domestic Agenda" section of Bush's second term, this text appears in quotes:
"fifth rail of politics,"
Is this an actual quote?  After all, the expression is actually the Third Rail of American politics.  The source cited most immediately after this quote does not contain any mention of a "fifth rail".  If someone can point out a document where a representative of the Bush administration actually said "fifth rail", please add it to the article.  Otherwise, I would like to change this to the more appropriate "third rail".
--Nevistar 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fifth Rail" ??? 

message: I added a POV-Check marker in the article underneath the following sentence. "However, critics have charged that Bush, unlike Carter, has injected his religion into government, blurring the separation between Church and State."
The reason I think this sentence is controversial, is because by saying George Bush is "blurring the seperation of church and state," You are implying that seperation of church and state actually exists. Nowhere in the United States constitution does it say "seperation of church and state".
The term "separation of church and state" refers to the Non-Establish clause in the Constitution. Yes! There IS a separation of church and state in the Constitution.
Edit: On second thought, I would be perfectly fine with the sentence if a link to the wikipedia article on Seperation of Church and State in the United States was cited. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States) -Trega123 11:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed both the sentence under discussion and the POV-check template.  The statement was unsourced.  --ElKevbo 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, "separation" only has one "E" in it. Dubc0724 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV: Seperation of Church and State 

message: On 1600x1200 resolution in particular, the page has several formatting errors I was unable to fix. (Viewing in Internet Explorer) -Trega123 11:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page breaks midway on larger resolutions. 

message: As an annonymous user I can't edit this but the last time I checked Bush did not have 95-98% of the American population voting for him in the 2004 election.... --70.179.119.138 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully suggest you register an account and help us contribute to the article.  --ElKevbo 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, can be done, however it mentions the inability for newly registered users to edit this article so figured it should be pointed out regardless of whether I register now or not. --70.179.119.138 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the block for new users is only for three days.  It's only there to prevent the casual vandal from vandalizing the article.  --ElKevbo 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four days, so I hear, but not really that relevent (just in case you get concerned after three days and can't edit). The point is, it's short. So create an account now if you think you might ever seriously edit the article. ---DrLeebot 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

message: Suggest adding this section to the United States presidential election, 2004 or the George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 page instead of the main George W. Bush page. CFM865 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opponents to re-election 

message: I removed the following text regarding the withdrawal of Miers' nomination:
:Miers was nominated by the President upon the recommendation of Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats who wanted a nominee outside the judicial system, so the person could bring a fresh perspective. However, after a perception of lack of experience and expertise along with harsh comments by prominent Evangelical members and Senators Sam Brownback and Arlen Specter, Miers requested her name be taken back. President Bush honored her request.
A previous version said:
:Bush withdrew her nomination after her request due to Democratic urgence of documents related to her involvement in the War in Iraq and pressure from the Evangelical community, that perceived her as pro-choice and her unknown status over gay marriage.
The material in both versions was unsourced and differ significantly changed both in content and tone.  The sparse material currently in the article (which merely says that her nomination was withdrawn) definitely needs to be fleshed out but it should be done with strict adherence to referenced sources and in a neutral point of view.  --ElKevbo 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miers nomination withdrawal

message: I move we delete the newly-added Trivia section.  I know that WP:TRIVIA is not an official policy or guideline but I do agree with the points raised in it.  Essentially, this trivia section is not only unsupported by citations (in its current version as of this minute) but it is, by definition, relatively unimportant and non-noteable.
In addition, we've already added and removed the Google Bomb information once and I still stand on the side of those who believe it is non-noteable and shouldn't be included in this article.  --ElKevbo 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did that. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't say. I've not looked. I only have this on my watchlist cause it's a vandalism target. Trivia sections can be interesting occasionally, but to be honest, if it's not worth working into continuous prose, it's probably not worth being in the article. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. rootology (T) 19:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are only my feelings on the matter, they are not supported by policy. I'm sure I read somewhere that FAC rarely/never pass if the article has a trivia section in it. Since it'd be fantastic if every article could be a FA, I think we should hold all articles to these standards. I might be wrong about the FAC thing, I'm not really in touch with the FAC process. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I erased the somewhat misleading note that Bush won in 2004 with "the largest tally of votes for any presidential candidate."  Most Presidents that won the popular vote have broken that record because of population growth.  I'm just noting here that the edit summary should have said "popular vote winner", not "election winner," since Bush won the Presidency while losing the popular vote in 2000. --Mr. Billion 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a notable fact seeing as the previous record for popular vote count was in Reagan's 1984 reelection victory, 20 years previous.--RWR8189 08:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every record is notable. I currently hold the record for longest time spent sitting in front of my computer (not the record for any computer, the record for my computer), but who the hell cares? A related record that would matter is the percentage of votes he won by, but this is actually quite slim. ---DrLeebot 14:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I agree but I agree with Mr. Bilion.  Absolute numbers aren't very meaningful when the population continues to grow and change.  Percentage would be much more noteable.  --ElKevbo 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary correction, and note about misleading point 

message: why do people keep removing what I put down. I'm not a vandle! I just what to save you people! 4.252.199.231 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we just block this dude?  He's done this several times now. Dubc0724 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but unfortunately people haven't been putting up warnings on his talk page with all of the previous reversions. I've put up the "Only Warning" template this time, so if he does it again, we have justification to block him. ---DrLeebot 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point - I haven't had much experience in blocking, so I wasn't sure what the protocol was.  Thanks! Dubc0724 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The full recommended proceedure is at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning_templates, if you wish to read it over. ---DrLeebot 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I stopped bothering putting up warnings even before I placed my first one on a vandal's page. I saw at least 4 or 5 final warnings and hardly any blocking had been done to the vandal I was about to place a warning to, and at most he was blocked for a few hours once or twice in a few weeks periods. Browsing around for a bit after that I noticed that was the norm apparently so I don't waste my time on that unfortunately.--Kalsermar 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why that is, as most vandals are doing it for the sport of it and only for a brief time. However, there are cases where vandals can turn into good editors--even administrators. When that potential exists, the series of increasingly stern warnings is important to give them a chance to turn themselves around. But either way, I'm not going to recommend a block for a user who doesn't already have a  or  up. ---DrLeebot 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: how much times do I have to tell you people! I'm not a vandle! 4.252.196.19 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is that anything like a "vandal"? Dubc0724 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I ment vandal not vandle. 4.252.192.236 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Also, I just noticed that this guy is apparently editing from a range of IP addresses, which would explain why I didn't see any warnings. ---DrLeebot 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why?

message: It's meant for discussion on the article and what should/shouldn't be included.  A lot of this page looks like a message board, which is not its purpose.  If you want to debate America's election process/September 11/Bush's IQ/etc. please do it in an outside forum. Please click the Talk Page Guidelines link at the top of this page for more info. CPitt76 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good advice. Bears repeating--Planetary 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Page 

message: We should mention Nucular, to answer the context of shibboleths heard that new people bring to a first reading of a bio?
192.42.249.130 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such trivial information should not be included in this article. -- WGee 23:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be so inclined to add it to the JFK and Jimmy Carter articles too? Squiggyfm 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shibboleths too, of course 

message: It's a parody site.
http://weeklyradioaddress.com/
It doesn't belong in the article!
Starks 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it matters the real site can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/radio/ PPGMD 01:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Weekly Radio Address Archive" site is FAKE!