Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 31

message: #--MONGO 23:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
#--Noitall 02:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
#:Simply a parallel and counter-point to the issue on polls. There is no need to have a counter-point to a counter-point, especially when the counter-point to the counter-point has nothing to do with Bush.
#--Curps 03:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those in favor of keeping Tony Blair and eliminating Galloway and Keys (A) 

message: #android79 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
#Or find a way to put in context to Bush a bit better--Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those in favor of eliminating the entire passage (C) 

message: In order to prevent "splitting the vote", votes in the section B, C, and D, count as votes in this section as well but solely for the purposes of comparison of option A with people who are opposed to option A
#~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those in favor of either (B) or (C) or (D), but not caring which of these options is chosen

message: #Gavin the Chosen 00:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstain

message: is there anyway to block all these returning vandals?? they keep showing up in the 80somethign range, can you block all the 80s or somthing?--I-2-d2 15:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  block 

message: *due to the extraoridnary volume of vandalism of this article, I suggest that it be protected, in order avert future vandals, all in favor, say aye...--I-2-d2 19:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL should be required reading before editing this page. Maybe any page. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Unprecidented volume of vandalism"? yYou missed the early days of Pope Benedict XVI.Geni 09:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the Pope really that bad? Anyway, this used to be locked but I'm glad that people were able to control themselves....even I have half the mind to vandalize this one, but I'm not. Anyway, I think it's pretty good NPOVwise. I really must compliment the community for keeping this one civil....now if only we could get that message to the protesters...HereToHelp 11:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprecidented volume of vandalism 

message: UG! well, at least we're getting somewhere.  It is yet again tilted heavily towards the left side...
Remember Kizzle that while the source material is heavily biased against bush in this case, there is plenty to work with that supports him.  You don't need to blow it out of proportion but you do need to keep it in perspective.
Not really a problem, but "has received" is passive voice.... "receives" or just "received" is active voice.... anyway...  I'm not sure why the second sentence in the first paragraph was put back in - we've got quite a bit of statistical data already... speaking of that there really is so much in this section it's quite overwhelming IMHO
The second paragraph is really biased (not neccesarily bad if there's balance someplace else), You have a longish quote starting out the paragraph and then the rest, sans a brief mention in the last sentence, is all biased against. There isn't even a quote or anything for the last sentence....
The third and fourth paragraph are pretty much number spinned towards the left side with no balance whatsoever.
The last paragraph would be the only real positive paragraph... except its not a paragraph because theres only one sentence!
Kizzle, was there a particular problem you had with my version (mine was far from perfect (it had some grammer errors too)... but I thought it did a decent job keeping it from a NPOV)?
:Ryan, first of all thank you for talking this through.  Keep in mind, NPOV doesn't mean balancing a negative sentence with a positive sentence, but representing something accurately without taking sides.  Have you read the entire polling results from the Ipsos, CBC, and Pew center?  Bush simply doesn't have a good opinion from people outside the country (which of course we would never conclude for the reader).  I don't understand what you mean by biased, as the poll results are clear from the datasheets provided... are you saying they modified the poll results or are you possibly disputing the veracity of the poll itself?
:I had a problem with your version because I felt that you completely white-washed the results of the poll by giving one negative sentence then balancing it with one positive.  Also, if you take the time to read the polls themselves, there's about 5 original words from me, the rest of the passages, both quoted and not, are quoted directly from these polls.  I prefer to quote these sources rather than summarize or interpret, as it leaves less room for us to interpret and thus get into conflicts.  And as it stands, the length has been cut down tremendously.  I even removed the long paragraph quoted in the second Pew poll saying how the Iraq War has destabalized the world because it was slightly redundant to the mention in the first paragraph, so please don't think that I am simply trying to "pile on" bad things about Bush.
:Once again, I beg of you please to read the polls themselves and ask if I am poorly representing the general nature of these polls.  If there are any positive conclusions that I have perhaps missed, then I please invite you to add them.  But as it stands, I think its vital for people, in understanding Bush's international opinion, to see direct quotes and opinions about:
:*Post-invasion Iraq
:*Weapons of Mass Destruction
:*Justifications for War
:*General opinion of Bush
:*Differences between US and Foreign opinion of BUsh
:Sorry to repeat again, but please read these polls for yourselves and see if I mis-represented the general conclusions of each. --kizzle 01:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:P.S., for those who also wish to see if I mis-represented these polls, here are quick links to the three:--kizzle 01:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:*CBC poll
:*Pew Research Center.
:*AP-Ipsos Poll
I have to support kizzle's version on this matter. The polls and opinions ARE negative outside of the U.S., with little exception. This does not say that Bush ais a bad person(although one might infer that just because many other people share that opinion). Diluting this with 1:1 positives creates an inccurate description of the mojority of peopl's opinions about Bush outside of the U.S.Voice of All(MTG) 04:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Now both versions for people to compare -
===Ryan's Version===
People outside of the United Status have a very mixed opinion of Bush, although he is considered unpopular by many, especially after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many polls, such as Associated Press poll in 2004  and a Pew Research Center poll in 2004 , find that people in countries such as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and Canada hold a negative view of Bush. Other polls show that the majority of people in the UK, USA, Australia, and Israel agreed with Bush that it was right to invade Iraq (Q22).
Some points that the Associated Press poll makes are that the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was debious, and that the Iraq war  has overly negative consequences. However, the Pew Research Center poll points out that, interestingly enough, most people believed that the Iraq war could be justified even without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction .
===Kizzle's Version===
Bush has received both criticism and praise outside the United States for his foreign policy decisions.  Polls of Europeans highlighted a "transatlantic split over the war in Iraq".  
A survey conducted by Ipsos for the Associated Press in 2004 found that "just over half in Mexico and Italy had a negative view of Mr. Bush's role. In Britain, the closest U.S. ally in the war in Iraq, and in Canada, two-thirds had a negative view...Three-fourths of those in Spain and more than 80 percent in France and Germany had a negative view of Mr. Bush's role in world affairs."   While those in the United States were evenly divided on whether the war has increased or decreased the terror threat, most of those sampled outside the United States believe that Bush's foreign policy decisions in the Iraq war have "increased the threat of terrorism in the world."   Interestingly, a majority in five countries — the United States, Canada, Mexico, Italy and Britain believed that the Iraq war could be justified even without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction
Another poll conducted by the Pew Research Center showed similar foreign attitudes towards Bush. Foreign opinion of post-invasion Iraq is relatively much higher. In another study, when Europeans were asked in 2004 if the Iraqi people will be better off now in a post-Hussein Iraq, 82% in the U.K., 67% in France and 65% in Germany agreed.   Those in Muslim countries surveyed in this poll are less confident of Iraq's future. Large majorities in almost every country surveyed think that American and British leaders lied when they claimed, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction." 
In Muslim countries Bush's unfavorability ratings are particularly high, often over 90%.  Among the non-U.S. nations polled in a worldwide poll by CBC, Bush's popularity was highest in Israel, where 62% reported favorable views, however in the CBC poll, Israel was the only foreign country polled that had a net favorable opinion of Bush.(Q2)
The majority of people in the UK, USA, Australia, and Israel however agreed with Bush that it was right to invade Iraq. (Q22)
--Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that most of the sentences above are quoted verbatim directly from either the polls or the articles themselves.  I believe that doing such a thing leaves little room for interpretation on our end and helps avoid conflicts between the two sides.
===JDoorjam's Version===
... which is mostly a reorg of Kizzle's version....
With some exceptions, Bush is considered unpopular in many countries, especially after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many polls, such as Associated Press poll in 2004  and a Pew Research Center poll in 2004 , find that people in countries such as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and Canada hold a negative view of Bush.   While those in the United States were evenly divided on whether the war has increased or decreased the terror threat, most of those sampled outside the United States believe that Bush's foreign policy decisions in the Iraq war have "increased the threat of terrorism in the world."   In Muslim countries Bush's unfavorability ratings are particularly high, often over 90%.  Among the non-U.S. nations polled in a worldwide poll by CBC, Bush's popularity was highest in Israel, where 62% reported favorable views; however, in the CBC poll, Israel was the only foreign country polled that had a net favorable opinion of Bush.(Q2)  
While outside the United States Bush's favorability ratings are rather low, foreign opinion of post-invasion Iraq itself is relatively much higher. In another study, when Europeans were asked in 2004 whether the Iraqi people will be better off now in a post-Hussein Iraq, 82% in the U.K., 67% in France and 65% in Germany agreed;   those in Muslim countries surveyed in this poll are less confident of Iraq's future.   And now, The Most POV Part of JDoorjam's Re-Write!! (I want to say here something along the lines of "the difference in the numbers is basically caused by a feeling that it was the right war for the wrong reasons -- that is that: ) Large majorities in almost every country surveyed think that American and British leaders lied when they claimed, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction."   (so they all got mad at Tony and George, but they support the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the increase in stability in the Middle East so much that: ) Interestingly, however, a majority in five countries — the United States, Canada, Mexico, Italy and Britain believed that the Iraq war could be justified even without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction
Basically what I tried to do was put the "Bush stinks!" stats together in one pile and the "Iraq IROCKS!" stats in another paragraph.  Is there a satisfactory way to say that, Righties, that is NPOV-clean?  If that sort of statistical analysis that I made reference to in bold is simply too POV, alas, it will have to be up to the reader to figure out.  See y'all tomorrow morning. JDoorjam 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside the U.S. opinions REDUX 

message: ... which is mostly a reorg of Kizzle's version....
With some exceptions, Bush is considered unpopular in many countries, especially after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many polls, such as Associated Press poll in 2004  and a Pew Research Center poll in 2004 , find that people in countries such as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and Canada hold a negative view of Bush.   While those in the United States were evenly divided on whether the war has increased or decreased the terror threat, most of those sampled outside the United States believe that Bush's foreign policy decisions in the Iraq war have "increased the threat of terrorism in the world."   In Muslim countries Bush's unfavorability ratings are particularly high, often over 90%.  Among the non-U.S. nations polled in a worldwide poll by CBC, Bush's popularity was highest in Israel, where 62% reported favorable views; however, in the CBC poll, Israel was the only foreign country polled that had a net favorable opinion of Bush.(Q2)  
While outside the United States Bush's favorability ratings are rather low, foreign opinion of post-invasion Iraq itself is relatively much higher. In another study, when Europeans were asked in 2004 whether the Iraqi people will be better off now in a post-Hussein Iraq, 82% in the U.K., 67% in France and 65% in Germany agreed;   those in Muslim countries surveyed in this poll are less confident of Iraq's future.   And now, The Most POV Part of JDoorjam's Re-Write!! (I want to say here something along the lines of "the difference in the numbers is basically caused by a feeling that it was the right war for the wrong reasons -- that is that: ) Large majorities in almost every country surveyed think that American and British leaders lied when they claimed, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction."   (so they all got mad at Tony and George, but they support the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the increase in stability in the Middle East so much that: ) Interestingly, however, a majority in five countries — the United States, Canada, Mexico, Italy and Britain believed that the Iraq war could be justified even without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction
Basically what I tried to do was put the "Bush stinks!" stats together in one pile and the "Iraq IROCKS!" stats in another paragraph.  Is there a satisfactory way to say that, Righties, that is NPOV-clean?  If that sort of statistical analysis that I made reference to in bold is simply too POV, alas, it will have to be up to the reader to figure out.  See y'all tomorrow morning. JDoorjam 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JDoorjam's Version

message: It's not a perfect way of sourceing matters, but seeing as I appear to be the non-American here I might as well make a few comments on the matter (and they are just that, comments) based entirely on my own experiences.
It would be fair to say that at best Bush only enjoyed lukewarm support in the UK. A good example would be the reception he recieved in London in November 2003, just seven months after the end of the invasion and before Iraq became a mess apparant to all. Blair's support of Bush would have cost him dearly at the election had not Labour done so well in other areas. His personal popularity has being dragged down by Bush because many in the UK do not like to see their national leader being made to jump at the whim of another nation's leader. 
Those citizens of Spain, France and Germany that I've met with (quite a few) universally dislike Bush, but that's hardly news. 
What I do find supriseing is that certain east euro nations such as Poland and Ukraine, whom you would expect to jump to defend the USA, are also rather qualified in their support. In the case of some citizen of the former, I was very much suprised to hear him dismissed in terms too colourful to be repeated here (in any case they probably lost something in translation).
What has being most shocking for me has being the turn-around here in my own country. We were one of the most pro-USA countrys in Europe, and to see the turn-around here when he began pushing towards invading Iraq .... its very sad, especially as we have contributed so much to your nation. Members of my own family have fought in every significant American war from the Revolution onwards. What makes it so tragic is that it has taken the deaths of upwards of two thousand Americans to make so many reach the same conclusion so many in the rest of the world had already reached prior to March 2003. 
Hopefully this should demonstrate (if only from an observer with bias) that not all those who oppose Bush are from US-hating countrys. 
So, in short, I am all in favor of a well written sub-section detailing this aspect of international grivence at Bush's unilateralism, mainly because it does seem to be something that not too many Americans were ever aware of in the first place (perhaps why it was just France that got bashed for opposition to the invasion). All thoughts welcome. Fergananim 19 August 2005.
:Your personal "foreign" opinion is noteworthy and is appreciated. I have to respond to your comment "What makes it so tragic is that it has taken the deaths of upwards of two thousand Americans to make so many reach the same conclusion so many in the rest of the world had already reached prior to March 2003." Obviously, no one can repay those families of deceased American soldiers (and also some foreign troops such as Mexicans that enlisted in the U.S. Army in accordance with being bestrowed U.S. citizenship as a reward). But what is that was learned that the majority of the U.S. population was unaware of that you claim the some many in the rest of the world already knew? Here's the bottom line: Saddam waged war against two other countries unprovoked. Saddam and his Baath party are the reason over 600 mass graves are in Iraq, filled with as many as 700,000 victims of his regime, tortured and exterminated. Saddam would flub his nose oftentimes at UN backed weapons inspections, interpreted by many to mean, whether he was or wasn't, covering something up. UN resolution 1441 passed unanimously and stated "serious consequences"...aside from the fact that every non aggressive UN action had already been utlized against Iraq, what where France and Germany doing voting for something they never intended to back up? The United States passed legislature endorsing the goal of ridding the world of Saddam during Clinton's administration, not Bush's. The United States then authorized President Bush the authority to invade Iraq...the closest thing it can do to an actual declaration of War, and it therefore, based on votes from even the likes of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, gave President Bush more leagal reasons to invade Iraq than the U.S. ever had for being in Vietnam. Saddam wasn't going to go away, the UN did not enforce it's own words and failed to act, setting an ugly precident for future issues with tyrants such as Saddam. The decision to go to war in Iraq wasn't done to give America cheaper gas, play revenge for Daddy or to say to the world, hey we will do whatever we want. The war was done to rid the world of a vicious tyrant. That people in other countries or in the U.S. can't understand what a better place the world is with the Baatist regime gone, then they have no idea what it must have been like to be a Kurd or Shite Muslum or even someone that would dare to speak out against Saddam in Iraq. Bottom line, diplomacy with Saddam wasn't working. That's all I have to say on the matter...you can have the last word.--MONGO 01:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
*Hi Mongo; you and I have crossed swords before, and still can't seem to make each other see our opposing points of view. We've said it all to each other before, at times acrimoniously, so what's the point of taking up unnecessary space. Let's just agree that we disagree. P.S: Why "foreign" opinion"? Fergananim 23.8.05.
:Interesting, thank you very much for your perspective :).  I have a question: I thought it very interesting that despite the polls showing a general lack of enthusiasm for the results of the war and of Bush himself, they also found that a majority in the UK thought that not only the Iraq war was justified, but that it could also be justified by reasons other than weapons of mass destruction.  Does this match up with your personal experience talking to people you know in the UK? --kizzle 15:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, no. That poll still leaves me scratching my head. There simply was never an overwhelming majority of the UK in favor of the war. I cannot put it any clearer than that. However, please remember, that as regaurds the UK, I am a foreign observer there too. Fergananim 23.8.05.
:Having lived in Germany for about 2 years, and also having had their opinions rammed down my throat (without EVER asking for it or bringing up politics), I can say they do not like President Bush nor do they like the Iraq War.  But they did seem to hold a negative opinion of us after we ousted their Fuehrer NRO, LIFE Magazine, January 7, 1946. (Also note how these articles sound suspiciously like some of the things we've been hearing in the Mainstream Media today...)  Foreign opinion doesn't really affect me.  And look at France.  We always help them (WW1&2), in spite of their opinions of us.  What did they think of our invasion at Normandy?  Or was that irrelevant to the larger mission of the time?  --Sarah Tutor 06:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally dislike Bush, but on foreign policy terms I do believe he acts for the benefit of his country. That is probably the main reason why he is disliked abroad - he acts for American interests and that usually means against the interests of the rest of us. He does it because he can. Lets not forget that in history every nation that had the ability to conquer their neighbours  did so with out reservation - there has never been a conscientious objector nation. The US is top-dog at the moment and has the ability to throw its weight around. Past world powers (UK, France, Germany, etc) and their leaders were equally disliked in their day, as will future world powers. Its really not surprising. Seabhcán 12:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush's Popularity outside USA (foreign perspective)

message: Would someone like to tell me why this section, hotly debated here just a few weeks ago, was completely altered without any discussion?
George Bush became the first President in American history to nominate an openly gay man, Michael E. Guest, to serve as an ambassador and be confirmed by Congress. He supports the executive order issued by Bill Clinton banning employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. During his 2000 campaign trail he met with the Log Cabin Republicans, a first for a Republican Presidential candidate. The organization endorsed him in 2000 but not in 2004.
Now the paragraph has gone from questionably relevant to just plain misleading. Yes, he was the first president to appoint a gay ambassador (as obscure a distinction as him being the first president to appoint an asian american female cabinet secretary, a fact that has now been removed), but only on a technicality-- Clinton appointed James Hormel in 1999, but while the Congress was in recess.  Read the link though... it's obvious that both in principle and public opinion that the title of "first president to appoint an openly gay ambassador" belongs to Clinton. To slap it up here with the modifier "to be confirmed by congress" is POV.
Also, can anyone provide a source for the claim that Bush supports the executive order issued by Clinton banning employment discrimination? I've seen rumblings  to the contrary-- abiding by an order and supporting it are two different things.
And perhaps it would be prudent to mention why the Log Cabin Republicans didn't endorse him in 2004, as I'm sure it has a great deal to do with Bush's stance on Civil Rights (the title of the section). Sdauson 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. I'll put it back to the version that was voted as "keep" by the majority. Sdauson 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay Ambassador

message: "United States President George W. Bush has stated that Chuck Norris is his favorite actor." Is this true? Should it be included in the article?
:Probably not, and certainly not in the intro paragraph.  He probably has a lot of favorite things (color, breakfast cereal, song, sports team) like anyone else but our articles usually don't bother with that kind of detail (unless it's been publicized widely in the media, like Ronald Reagan's prediliction for jelly beans). -- Curps 04:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not.  Again, if we ever split the page, and have a "Bush the Man" and "Bush the President" pages (instead of the current "Bush the President" and "Bush the Man and President" pages) then maaayyybbbeee on a more personal page we could include his favorite this and thats, where reliable sources are available.  But no, it doesn't fit in here.  JDoorjam 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am strongly against any such division of the article into "Bush the man" and "Bush the president", ultimately, it is the same person, regardless of their job. So, to me, this seems really demented. Any other comments? — Ryguillian 22:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  President's Favorite Actor? 

message: I'm feeling closer to saying that this is inching closer to NPOV; who wants to weigh in next?  This article will always be controversial, and will certainly always be on my watch list, but I feel like, if we are all rational about it, we could take the neutrality tag off the front page by the first week of September.  So who's up next?  Who's got burning NPOV issues? JDoorjam 18:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about addressing the drunk driving. I see that there's an overview of the situation in the article, but it seems that User:Jack Cox wants Bush included in a category as well. Any consensus? I genuinely appreciate the inclusion of petroleum in the Iraq section btw. --Howrealisreal 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The drunk driving category collects everyone who's been convicted of drunk driving. That includes Bush. NPOV requires his inclusion. Krakatoa 23:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Revisited 

message: JDoorjam deleted this "meaningless quotation" from Bush (with link to Bush speech where he said this -- see ). It's undoubtedly an (insane, meaningless, Orwellian, choose your adjective) thing to say, but Bush did say it. The fact that Bush is a demented person who says bizarre things is not a basis for removing quotations to them. It's not the role of Wikipedia to put clothes on the naked emperor.   Krakatoa 23:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Being factual is not merit enough to be encyclopedic.  Go and plug it into Bushisms if you'd like to see it live in wikispace, but in this article, even in the context of the Iraq war, it's a meaningless aside that is clearly a partisan jab (which your comment above leaves no doubt about).  The quotation was dropped into the article with really no context at all, and pretty clearly is there for the purpose of saying "ha ha, Dubya is dumb."  There are simply bigger fish to fry than Bushisms in this wikispace.  JDoorjam 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace"