Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 32

message: It's well known Bush is a born-again christian it's the truth Jack Cox 19:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fairly common knowledge. But it should be stated in a way that doesn't potentially seeem POV to other Christian denominations, who might disagree with the use of the term. The way the article phrases it now looks ok. keith 10:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush is a born-again christian 

message: If I remember correctly, according to Bush At War, he wasn't expected to give any speeches, and that the entire speech was off the cuff. It was the supervisor standing next to him during the speech that gave him the bullhorn. PPGMD 04:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Rubble Speech 

message: Arnoldlover has suggested removing the NPOV tag.  Since the tag was first placed on this article, a great deal of thought and work (not to mention volumes of discussion) has gone into giving it a more NPOV making it NPOV.  I think that the editors of this article should be recognized for their conscientious work and the tag removed. Sunray 22:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)  
Please cast your vote for removing or keeping the NPOV tag.  The survey results will be tabulated at noon (Washington time) on August 30, 2005.
 
====Remove====
#Remove: I'd vote for removing the NPOV tag. --Arnoldlover 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means npovsect tags should be applied, not a whole-article npov tag (parts of this article are npov).  As for vandalism, it wouldn't get much more vandalism than other front-page articles (and randomly inserting POV to WP:POINT is not really just POV). Also, this guy is not going to stop being controversial for like another 20 years at least - so lets take care of the problems now rather than later. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey to remove NPOV tag

message: #Remove: I'd vote for removing the NPOV tag. --Arnoldlover 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove

message: #Keep -bro 172.208.130.133 03:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means npovsect tags should be applied, not a whole-article npov tag (parts of this article are npov).  As for vandalism, it wouldn't get much more vandalism than other front-page articles (and randomly inserting POV to WP:POINT is not really just POV). Also, this guy is not going to stop being controversial for like another 20 years at least - so lets take care of the problems now rather than later. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep

message: Cut from article:
:A challenge of the electoral college results by members of the U.S. Congress, only the second in U.S. history, was defeated by a vote of 1-74 (Yea-Nay) in the Senate and by a vote of 31-267 in the House.
Why was this cut? Because it's untrue? Or irrelevant? Or covered better elsewhere? (I find it interesting, so if no one objects, I'd like to put it back.) Uncle Ed 22:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, it could be included in the article, but it does not fit in the intro to the article. I feel it fits better in the section that talks about presidential campaigns, and there is a statement already in that section that covers the challenge, but it does not have the vote counts.
I'd recommend that you edit the existing statement in the presidential campaigns area for whatever clarification you feel is needed. Hope this helps!
--KBecks 14:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Electoral college challenge

message: Ronald Reagan, at the time a former Governor of California, endorsed Bush's opponent in the Republican primary.
I don't feel this is significant. While Regan is a legendary political figure, the article does not go into any of the other endorsements. Plus, Bush obviously won the primary. 
The point that is trying to be made is that Reagan did not favor Bush at the time. But because it deals with a primary election, it seems less than relevant and a POV slam towards Bush.
--KBecks 13:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel this statement is POV 

message: Colin Powell became the first African-American man to serve as Secretary of State during Bush's first term in office. In 2005 he was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, who became the first African-American woman to hold the post.
It looks like this is intentionally presented to give Bush no credit for appointing Powell and Rice. In fact, it reads as if these things just "happened" all on their own. 
I'd appreciate an edit, I've considered it, but am mentally struggling with how to edit without disrupting the flow. 
Also, some additional informatin on Condi's first appointment by bush (not secretary of state) might be helpful.
Thank you,
--KBecks 14:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a bit more spin towards Bush Ryan Norton T | @ | C 14:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another POV issue re: Powell / Rice 

message: There are a lot of pipes in this article -- words like "man", "woman", "money".
Would it be OK to remove some of these very basic links?
*Pipes are fine - but they should only pipe on the first occurance of the word.  As for links see also and some of the transcripts in the external links section could be purged Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking mainly about wikilinks, not pipes.  A pipe is a specific form of wikilink in which the sentence in this article doesn't use the exact wording of the title of the other article, so the wikilink has a pipe dividing the article title from the way it's referred to here.  In general, although we wikilink only the first occurrence of a word, there's reason to depart from that generalization when a term is introduced again in a later section of a long article like this one.  Turning to specifics, I don't feel strongly about linking "man", "woman", and "money", but what other links did you have in mind for removal? JamesMLane 21:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too [[many]] pipes / links? 

message: Bush has pushed for tapping into oil reserves in the fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thought by many to be the last untouched wilderness left in the US.
I think using the word fragile is POV, and unsubstantiated. 
Any objections to removing it? The 2nd part of the sentence covers environmental concern.
Thanks,
--KBecks 13:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arctic ecosystems aren't more sensitive than any other ecosystem. It's a controversial topic not because of any claims of fragility, but opposition to human influence on the land. While it's true that the ANWR isn't untouched in the strictest sense of the word, this wilderness remains one of the most pristine and natural areas of the country. Designated wilderness areas in the lower 48 have strict standards to adhere to in an attempt to limit any influence humanity has on those areas, but volumes of tourism makes some impact unaviodable. This is a problem that ANWR hasn't had to deal with for the last hundred years or so, making it rather unique. Sdauson 06:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While not completely disagreeing, and trying to not diverge away from the subject (Bush) I just want to remind you that due to the location of ANWR being north of the Brooks Range, the recovery of such an area can take centuries, whereby, much of Yellowstone National Park (about a third) experienced extensive fires in 1988 and in those areas, the trees have rejuvenated and are over 30 feet high in places. However, all the fear when the Alaska pipeline was built (caribou herd migrations, oil leaks, etc.) have come to naught, but only because the environmental protocols were established to ensure effective monitoring, land reclaimation and resource rehabilitation would be effectively applied. Human ecological impact is always greatest in colder climates due to shorter growing seasons. The cold has a tendency to lock things in time...vehicle tracks on the north slope made during WWII still look almost fresh.--MONGO 07:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
You two clearly know more about this topic, thanks for the comments and good luck on finding the most accurate wording to make the article most clear. --KBecks 13:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - fragile? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=22228134
Done by a political science professor, evidently.  Looks like the person completely rewrote the page, killing most of the content.... 
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this edit? 

message: Year	    Legislation signed
2001	
*June 7: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
*September 18: Authorization for Use of Military Force
*September 28: United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act
*October 26: USA PATRIOT Act
*November 28: Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act
2002	
*January 8: No Child Left Behind Act
*March 9: Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
*March 27: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
*May 13: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
*July 30: Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
*October 16: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
*November 25: Homeland Security Act of 2002
2003	
*March 11: Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
*April 30: PROTECT Act of 2003 (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act) (see also Age of consent) 
*May 27: United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003
*May 28: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
*September 3: United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
*September 3: United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
*November 5: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
*December 8: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
*December 16: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM)
2004	
*April 1: Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci and Conner's Law)
2005	
*February 18: Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
*April 20: Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005
*August 2: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
*August 8: Energy Policy Act of 2005
*August 10: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA)
Does the above look better than the current way?
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it glocks out 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pretty table for major legislation signed 

message: According to the recent survey (above), the NPOV tag stays.  Seventeen people voted.  Eleven (65%) were in favor of removing the tag and six opposed.  The guideline for consensus suggests a two thirds majority as a measure of consensus on talk pages.  So it's close but no cigar for those who want to remove that tag.  Although it was close, strong feelings were expressed by many of the folks who voted to retain the tag.  Perhaps we could look at it again down the road.  I do think it is a good article, though.  Sunray 14:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nah - what we decided (I believe) is tagging individual problem sections with the sectnpov tag, as just tagging the whole article in this case isn't helping anyone Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was not the decision.  The vote was on removing the tag, it failed. 70.110.5.170 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The NPOV tag stays

message: Scimitar-
"When I said that we had proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because she would say it never happened... One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe v. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I'd just like the national media to ask him (Bush) if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America..."  [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a003c0d1227.htm]
(Comment moved from top of page to bottom of page)
*To describe Flynt as "joining the frenzy of mudslinging" is not terribly encyclopedic.  Furthermore, major changes should be discussed on the talk page first.  Additionally, since we're a tertiary source of information, our references should be impecable (i.e. MSM, etc.).  If it is the opinion of the majority of editors that this information should be included, go for it. I'm thinking, probably not. --Scimitar parley 22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush abortion 

message: Well, I tried being draconian, but there are too many IPs. Looking at the block log, it looks like many of them have been blocked - but there's only a certain amount of vandalism the article can take in a certain timeframe before you lock up.
I hope the Bush haters are happy - now they can't edit it at all. :) --Golbez 01:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:(cough)...semi-protection...(cough).  Thanks Golbez for keeping up the blocks on vandalism. --kizzle 01:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
::(cough)...semi-protection...(cough)...Amen brother...!--MONGO 02:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::(cough)...semi-protection...(cough)...you're preaching to the choir man!Voice of All(MTG) 03:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
::I've tried it before Golbez. It really is futile, we can't block a page until January of 09, no matter HOW many admins we have. The only non-legal page we kept locked is the Main Page, and all templates on it, to keep penises from the eyes of the casual visitor. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, I'm so confused, why is this article locked? by locking it, aren't you basically letting the vandals have their way?--Wikiwarrior 03:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No. I don't even see how that makes sense. We're making it so the SysOps have their way ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 2 out of the last 50 edits were useful, one of which was by a logged-in user. 21 vandalisms were performed by 17 unique non-logged-in IPs and 2 logged-in users. All within 21 hours. Can we protect  pages so they can only be edited by logged-in users? DDerby(talk) 05:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We tried to push that and I forget where the link is in :meta I think...Kizzle can probably direct you as he pointed it out to me.--MONGO 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 A note to anyone who unprotects this article (which I'll probably do in a few hours): Remember to then protect it from moving. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrug 

message: Can we be more specific about the "some" who "praised" the federal response to Katrina?  And a link maybe?  Otherwise I think it should go.  The criticism is attributed to many victims, the praise to an unspecified "some."  Like many people, I have been following this story closely, and although I have seen the federal response excused, the only praise I have heard has come from feds themselves (Bush telling "Brownie" he's doing a great job, Sen. Landrieu praising Bush, etc.)  And even Bush himself flip-flopped, having first stated that the response was "unacceptable." And the reaction to the response from some conservative commentators like David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, and others has been extremely negative.  So can we have some specifics please, or are we just making stuff up and calling that balance? 68.110.199.122 15:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, then I'll change the word "praise" to "defend." 68.110.199.122 02:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, I see an edit has already been done. 68.110.199.122 02:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "However, some praised the actions of his administration and others shifted criticism to state and local governments of the region."

message: Is it really appropriate to have Bush's name in Russian here? I know we do it for others, but I thought that was only for foreign names. --Scimitar parley 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian translation 

message: Sept. 14, 2005
Look at the section on Bush's college education.  Err, is that true?  How could I have missed this story? 
-Winston Laremy
:I've removed it.  If someone provides a source, then we can consider whether it's worth mentioning. JamesMLane 16:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tongue in Pig Incident

message: For several months this article was essentialy a hotbed of POV disputes. I was quite shocked to find the tag had been removed upon my visit just now. For what reason has the NPOV tag been removed?
:I'm not sure. The last vote resulted in a consensus to keep it, as far as I can tell (look up the page about 10 sections).—chris.lawson (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure consensus was to keep it. Someone else calculated that 65% voted remove, and it was "close, but no cigar." The one anon user shouldn't count in this instance. I know this isn't AfD or anything, but how do we know there was no sock vote? And two-thirds is a guideline, not a policy. It was rather close to say it's not 66.66666...% POV issues had been addressed, and the article is pretty darn NPOV. I call for another straw poll on removal. If you vote keep, would you mind pointing out areas of the article that are horribly POV? We should give it a week or so. This talk page is usually pretty snappy. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV? 

message: # Remove. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove POV Tag

message: #Keep. Adding something negative to every positive thing, or adding something positive to every negative thing, (ie. "others people defended the federal response to Katrina"--- who among us really thinks the feds did a good job?) doesn't make an article NPOV. Sdauson 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep POV Tag

message: The Arthur Blessit innuendo is just the claim of that one person, and isn't substantiated....for the record, the only proven meetings with any evangelist are the ones with Billy Graham. That is why I took this out.
The 2004 election results were not congressionally challenged so putting in that wording is inaccurate...some in congress may have "questioned" the results, but that is very different than a congressionally challenged outcome.--MONGO 20:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could attribute the innuedo to the person who claimed it. I agree with you on the congressionally challenged part :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Blessitt only stated it to get him noticed...there is zero evidence that any chance meeting they had was the impetus towards Bush either becoming "reborn" or converting to Methodism. I have doubts that Graham even had that much major influence and atribute a lot of Bush's current religious views as much to his wife as anything else.--MONGO 03:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I believe the comments about Bush's support in Australia needs a reference to verify. Being from Australia I find it hard to believe that 'George Bush had always had a positive image' and 'Support had gone up'. Where did these (verifiable) statements come from? Durng the last election there was on online poll in the Melbourne Age newspaper which ended up with around 80% support for Al Gore. Although the Australian P.M. (John Howard) supports Bush and the war in Iraq I believe the opposite is true for the majority of Australian people. ScottRShannon 00:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but what relevance does it have to an article on an American President?...you can alter it if you can cite all the necessary references.--MONGO 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely not, Bush's support in Australia begins and ends with the Prime Minister. I would recommend some of the authors of this article to read Lathan Diaries to see what the other Australia thinks.
--tequendamia 13:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's support in Australia 

message: You should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol you useless piece of shit.
:With such a fine display of opinion surely worthy of direct attention, why not just email him here: --MONGO 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing you said whitehouse.gov rather than whitehouse.com ; - ) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure all the people who think Bush should have ratified Kyoto have SAID the EXACT same thing to Bill Clinton.  --JJLatWiki 14:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clinton tried but couldn't sign the US into it because the republicans in congress blocked its passage--69.42.4.3 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I mean, you know how easy the liberal media was on clinton?right?what a free ride, so they called him buba all the time, used the words scumbag, amoral, ruined america.. I think the point here is that the media is clearly liberal, and they've been giving the clintons a free ride for far too long--152.163.100.9 23:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever watched FOX news? The Wookieepedian 07:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Bush 

message: The sentence says "...scoring a overall grade point better."  Maybe "scoring one grade point higher, overall."?  This may also be confusing because the paragraph refers to two different grade point systems, with one grade point being a huge margin on a 4 point scale, and a small margin on a 100 point scale (if that is what the Yale system is).67.120.104.151 05:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, but instead of editing the passage, I've deleted it.  The article about Bush doesn't need to talk about someone else's college grades. JamesMLane 04:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yale grade points sentence 

message: The people who hate Bush are turning this Article (the entire article, not just a few fringes) into their own personal daily diary of reasons they hate Bush.  The Katrina situation is a prime example.  Why not just create a section called, "It's Bush's Fault"?  Then add item number 722, Katrina, with a link to that article.
I don't like Bush and never have, but what is it that keeps people from treating him fairly?  I don't mean "fairly" as in changing an intentional insult from "Bush refused to let the worst natural disaster in modern history cut into his month-long vacation." to "Bush was informed of the hurricane while vacationing and he decided to do a fly-over on his way back to Washington."  I mean that we use our critical thinking skills and be honest about what we put in here, and not use an encyclopedia as the chronical of his daily mistake.  How much does it matter that the president was "on vacation"?  Does anyone think he was lounging on a beach turning away every staffer bring reports and paperwork for him to sign as if they were flies on a picnic?  How many times did he sign his name while on this "vacation"?  (and I don't mean room-service receipts)  How many reports did he read?  How many calls to other government officials, and officials from other countries did he make?
Honest means that if you add to the article blaming Bush for the severity of the Katrina (and Rita) because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, then show us that you first blamed Clinton for doing the same.  If you blame Bush for ignoring the danger caused by the New Orleans levees and marshland destruction, show us that you blame all the previous presidents who did the same.  Research how much federal money has been given to Louisiana and New Orleans for their levees and how much actually got put into building, repairing, and maintaining the levees.  Tell us why the levee failure and the aftermath is more Bush's fault than Clinton's, or congress' (past and present), the past and present legislature of the state of Louisiana, the past and present Louisiana governor, past and present New Orleans city council, past and present Mayor of New Orleans, and the voters who made some of the actual decisions on how and where money should be directed.
Politicians and reporters have the luxory of pointing the finger at the high man on the totem pole.  An encyclopedia has the responsibility to look beyond rhetoric and bias.  This article is one of the best examples of Wikipedia's systemic bias and why it's an unreliable source of information for remotely political information. --JJLatWiki 23:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well said JJLatWiki. I agree on most of your points. An encylopedia article should be as unbiased as possible and it seems that many are trying to push their POV in order to sway people to their viewpoint. Maltmomma (chat)  00:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So basically you are saying this aryicle has too many facts?  Bush's mistakes should be chronicled if this article is going to be worth reading.  The most powerful man in the U.S. should have his actions and decisions scrutinized.  To state a fact is not bias, as long as all facts are allowed, including those that might make Bush appear in a favorable light. Complain about presentation -- I'm on your side there -- but it's censorship you are advocating if your calling for the removal of factual infromation like "Bush did a flyover days after the hurricane hit." 68.9.184.173 18:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Diane Ravitch should write a sequel to The Language Police titled The Language Police 2: The Plot to Take Over Wikipedia ; - ) Redwolf24 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Maltmomma.  What concerns me most about the one-sided contributions in this article and many other political articles is the effect it will have on children using Wikipedia for research.  SO much energy goes into documenting every step THIS president makes while the background is completely ignored.  Unfortunately for Wikipedia, editors of this article don't take on the responsibility of researching the background of their contributions to this article.  For the sake of completeness of the encyclopedia as a whole, they should do more than simply adding one factoid to one article.  For example, if a child were researching the UNFPA and using only the pages of Wikipedia, that child might assume that UNFPA has existed since 1969 and that the United States has been contributing unconditional funds until 2002 when suddenly Bush withdrew funding based on his own claims.  Whomever added the FACT that Bush cut funding to UNFPA should have researched deeper and added that Reagan cut funding citing similar claims, and Bush/41 continued to withhold funding for the same reasons, and while Clinton restored overall funding to the UNFPA, he conditioned the funding based on the same claims that Reagan and both Bush's cited.  The facts surrounding the UNFPA factoid should have caused corresponding factual entries in at least the articles for Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and UNFPA.  I understand that people hate Bush, and in a blog debate, there's no reason to be completely honest.  But this is an encyclopedia that happens to be a very popular source of information for a great many people.  If you're contributions are motivated by such strong emotions, then you probably shouldn't contribute at all.  Just like driving a car, if your emotions are getting the better of you, don't get behind the wheel.  --JJLatWiki 17:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article reports that Bush supported three major tax cuts.  Should it add that Reagan also pushed through big tax cuts, and that Bush 41 and Clinton both raised taxes?  For that matter, I think some Republicans cited JFK's tax cut of 40 years earlier as an example of tax cutting promoting economic growth, so does that need to be mentioned, too?  The point of my question is that the article about Bush can't give the full history of every issue he's affected.  That's what the hyperlinks are for.  The fact is that Bush's action with regard to UNFPA has been a significant issue during his presidency in terms of the public attention paid to it (more so than many matters that involved much more money).  That action by Bush is therefore an appropriate topic for the Bush article.  I suggest you find citations for the earlier history you recount, write it up in NPOV style, and add it to United Nations Population Fund#UNFPA and the United States Government.  Currently, that section's history doesn't go back before 2002. JamesMLane 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the UNFPA subject had any significant attention paid to it.  I doubt more than a handful of people are aware of its existance or ANY of the history of the UNFPA.  And the fact that the editor who added it to Bush's article utterly and completely neglected to beef up the history of the UNFPA article tells me that contributing another negative phrase to the Bush article was the one and only motivation.  The reason I haven't beefed up the UNFPA or the other articles I mentioned is that I personally don't care about it.  I shouldn't be paying for it and it shouldn't be controversal that the US isn't contributing.  But it IS apparently significant to the editor who added it.  When I contribute edits, I research the subject of my edit and try to contribute to related subjects or at least browse them to see how accurate and complete they are.  All the facts regarding UNFPA shouldn't be part of this article.  Of course they should primarily be part of the main UNFPA article, but the way most editors of this article operate, they make Wikipedia seem more like a political blog than an encyclopedia.  The Bush-hater's efforts to make this article a laundry list of ONLY the factual data that supports THEIR biased opinion taints the article and casts a biased shadow on the whole of Wikipedia.   I point to the suggestions to include the Googlebomb and fell of the wagon. --JJLatWiki 21:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia going to document every last detail? 

message: If this is true shouldn't it be in here? It is definately encyclopedic? Comments
:I would expect to find it in the new Early life of George W. Bush article.  I'd be wrong, but there you go. Jkelly 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: George Bush: Cheerleader in college?

message: This is a list of the categories of which this article is a member.
* :Category:1946 births
* :Category:George W. Bush
* :Category:Bush family
* :Category:Children of U.S. Presidents
* :Category:People from Connecticut
* :Category:People from Texas
* :Category:Delta Kappa Epsilon brothers
* :Category:Bonesmen
* :Category:Harvard alumni
* :Category:Yale alumni
* :Category:American aviators
* :Category:Baseball executives
* :Category:Business leaders
* :Category:CEOs of America
* :Category:Entrepreneurs
* :Category:Drunk drivers
* :Category:Born-again Christians
* :Category:Methodists
* :Category:Texas politicians
* :Category:Governors of Texas
* :Category:Texas history
* :Category:U.S. politicians
* :Category:U.S. Republican Party presidential nominees
* :Category:Presidents of the United States
* :Category:Plame affair
* :Category:LGBT rights opposition
* :Category:Intelligent design advocates
* :Category:Current national leaders
This seems a little excessive to me.  There's also quite a lot of redundancy (category George W. Bush is a member of category Bush family, and so on).  Would anybody mind if I prune the cats a bit? --Tony SidawayTalk 19:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind so long as we don't leave in such cats as :Category:CIA leak scandal...which I'm not sure even deserves a category to begin with.--MONGO 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well Tony, some of them have already been put back into the article. Nice effort though. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories seem to need pruning

message: This is very simply wrong because, as is too typical, it is a politically motivated personal attack based on emotionalism, and the politics of hate over objectivism.  This is starkly exemplified by the fact that such "contributors" completely neglect the fact that Bush handily won the 2004 elections via Constitutional Law (as he did in 2000) AND popular vote.  The very suggestion of voter fraud (none of which has ever been proven) plunges wikipedia to the level of a pulp conspiracy-theory novella.  Alas, Wikipedia is only as good as its community.  Communal ignorance and bias results in a biased and therefore worthless encyclopedia.  The viability of Wikipedia hinges on eliminating biasness, ignorance and hate.  Rather difficult I'd say. TLY.
Is this a criticism of him that is actually being made?  I find it hard to believe, just because it's so retarded...it's a tautology.  If this is a criticism that people are actually making, then however retarded a criticism it might be, it does belong in the article--but I have a hard time believing that anyone would proffer such a retarded notion as a "criticism".  Kurt Weber 22:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's meant in a tautological manner, and it's true that there have been widespread allegations of fraud against Diebold, manufacturer of (among other things) voting machines, whose CEO "committed to deliver the state of Ohio to Bush in 2004" (yes, that's a quote from the CEO). But if this is going in the article, it really needs to be rephrased. I think the basic intent of it is to say that Bush has been widely criticised for winning elections whose veracity is doubtful, which seems fairly true to me, what with hanging chads, the Palm Beach County ballot problems, and the whole Diebold mess.--chris.lawson 22:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I thought he was talking about perceived flaws in the electoral college, not vote fraud. We probably shouldn't engage in attempts at mind-reading. In any case, such criticism does not belong in the introduction, but in the Presidential campaigns section (at least not with such verbosity). android79 22:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a comment that, many worldwide opponent's of Bush state, that depending on the voting system used (STV, US Collegiate, First Past The Post etc). The fact that he went to court in the state where is brother was Governor to gain the presidency is a different matter. What I was pointing to was the fact that it is possible to gain the presidency without achieving the highest proportion of the casted vote. --Chazz88 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The electoral college system is designed so that a candidate with a minority of the popular vote can gain a majority of the electoral college vote. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and it's been around for some time. Why the sudden fuss? It's almost as if some people didn't know about it before the election :)--inks 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, it was actually the fourth time in history a popular vote loser won the electoral vote. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1824 does not fit your statement.  Nobody wins the electoral vote unless they receive a majority of the whole number of electors.  There was no electoral vote "winner" in 1824, Adams won solely due to the vote of the House. NoSeptember 12:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: But it was the first time a president was elected by a state that given a full recount, would have gone to his opponent. --kizzle 02:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's speculation and it does not comport with the media pool's study as they watched the recount.  Gore asked for a recount in only 4 of 67 counties so we'll never know for sure, but I don't believe it's true in this case.  But I strongly believe the statement is wrong since the Rutherford B. Hayes election contained so much chicanery I strongly believe he'd have lost with a full and fair recount of any of several states. Additionally, a fair recount in Al Capone's homestate of Illinios may have changed the outcome of the 1960 election. However, this was not an election where the electoral winner did not win the popular vote. --JimmyCrackedCorn 04:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not speculation.  You are right that the partial recount Gore advocated would have ended up with Bush still winning, however, given a full recount in which all the previously disqualified ballots were reviewed, Gore would have won.  In other words, while the system picked Bush, the state of Florida picked Gore. That's not speculation, those are the findings of the recount performed by the AP. --kizzle 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore my edits were valid. It was only due to the voting system that Bush got presidency. Furthermore, I didn't state this as a fact. I just stated BOTH sides of the argument. Going to rv --Chazz88 11:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "system" to which Kizzle refers and the "voting system" to which you are referring are not the same thing. Your problems with the electoral college stem from ignorance on your part and have nothing to do with this article. Please stop reverting, or you'll be blocked for violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule.--chris.lawson 11:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: would you please PLEASE check your facts before you post things like this?  it's all very conveniently right here on wikipedia, in fact linked to from this article.  clearly, under some scenarios, Gore would have won.  if for example the florida supreme court's opinion (for a statewide recount) had not been overturned by the federal supreme court, Gore would have won.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#The_Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts.  on a personal side note, isn't it funny how conservatives reneg on their commitment to states' rights whenever it gets in their way?tej 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: i'm confused.  the 2000 election page says the florida supreme court ordered "a manual recount of disputed ballots in all Florida counties in which such a recount was not already complete."  oh, ok, i think i understand now.  if all ballots had been recounted, it would have shown Gore to be the winner, but if only the undervotes (undervote = disputed ballot?) were recounted, it still would have been Bush?  it still seems odd in this case to argue that Bush actually "won" florida.  i guess it depends on whether you are using a technical definition of "winning" or an abstract one.  my opinion would be the real "winner" is the one more people voted for.  according to the manual recount of all ballots, that person is Gore.  in this case, the system provided an inaccurate measure.tej 22:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of our knowledge, the citizens of Florida picked Gore. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: i take it then, that you either haven't read the above information or you don't believe it.  clearly, according to analysis of the florida election cited above, if every ballot had been counted, including the undervotes (where the voter's intention is clear even if they didn't understand technically how they were supposed to remove the chad or whatever), Gore would have been the winner.  depending on your point of view, "Bush was elected" may be accurate (or may not be), but the fact that more citizens voted for Gore in florida is not, i believe, a matter in serious dispute.  it's whether you believe those votes should have been counted or not according to our electoral system.  in this case, i suppose what matters in terms of whether or not it's a "disputed election" is that the opposing candidate and his party do not dispute it (regardless of whether they perhaps should).  but if you want to talk about what the citizens actually wanted, why not count every ballot?tej 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm...no.  Kurt Weber 15:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the [[Voting system|voting system]] has played a major part in his gaining and keeping of the Presidency." 

message: I was just browsing the Wiki when I stumbled upon this gem. By God's belly, this article is out of control! I see people citing the Wiki's nature as the reson for the bias, but I want to disagree. Love and hate are not bias in politics, they are the politics. All of the recent presidents here are blown out of proportions because we love and/or hate them so much, and our fundamental beliefs and feelings are actually what makes up much of the political knowledge. In other words: show me a single unbiased (and just as informative) article about W. Bush, and I will admit that Wiki dropped the ball on this one. We could throw away about half of this article and leave it unbiased, but why? I think, it is good enough that it's not locked down: with a topic this hot it shows that you, people, have done an exceptional job. Keep it up, you have my gratitude. melikamp 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ha ha -- U.B.Joe|~Talk 21:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's throw away half of this article as biased! [crickets] 

message: Anyone know where the article comes up with the an employment level of 111,828,000 in June 2005?  The US Government Bureau of Labor statistics Table A (household survey, includes self-employed) shows a seasonally unadjusted employment level of 142,456,000 people over 16 in June 2005.  And a seasonally adjusted level of 141,638,000 in June of 2005.  While Table B (nonfarm employer record data) shows an unadjusted employment level of 134,718,000 and an adjusted level of 133,588,000.
They all record employment levels higher than when Bush took office by December 2004.
Table A data source: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm 
Table B data source: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
If no one can provide a source for the article's current content I'm going to correct the numbers and source the data with a link this time.
Also unemployment rate is given from December 2000 as Bush's starting point.  Figures BLS gives are typical of midmonth.  Since Bush took office January 20th, 2001 the midmonth January figure is far more representative of what he started with than December.  Anyone disagree?
If no comment, I'll assume agreement and make the change tomorrow at about noon EDT.
--JimmyCrackedCorn 03:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Employment Level?

message: I'm surprised that this article does not mention the alcohol issue mentioned on Early life of George W. Bush. Bush himself admitted he once had the habit of drinking too much — which is usually referred to as alcoholism. Now, Bush has totally ceased consuming alcohol — a move characteristic of alcoholics who stopped drinking but fear they would start again if they touched one drop of alcohol.
This topic is, I think, of great importance. Alcohol abuse, to which Bush has confessed, is known for the damages that it inflicts on the brain and the mental capacities of alcohol abusers. In the case of a head of state, especially that of the United States, diminished mental capacities can have dire consequences.
Thus, I think that we should discuss the alcohol issue on this page, and not just stuff it to a side page that nobody notices.
Thanks for your attention. Truth in our time 09:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is discussed. The DUI, his conversations with Billy Graham, his taped messages with Wead. There is no proof he was ever an alcoholic in a clinical sense...he admitted that he drank, there is a DUI conviction and he alluded to drug use...none of that is damning evidence that he is, was, or will be an alcoholic.--MONGO 10:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that the word "alcohol" does not seem to appear in this article. Would you point out to me where Bush's alcohol issues are discussed? They don't even appear in Education, military service, and early personal life, which should be a summary of Early life of George W. Bush. Truth in our time 11:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: To be precise, you can call him an alcoholic, but he may not be one in the medical sense. A diagnosis of alcoholism is made with a help of scoring systems - e.g Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (BMAST), among others. Thus it is misleading to call him an alcoholic, especially given the negative connotations associated with that label.--inks 10:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's just say that he had an excessive consumption of alcohol, by his own admittance. By the way, since you seem to have medical experience, can you confirm that excessive consumption of alcohol is detrimental to the brain and correct mental functions, with chronic effects lasting even after excessive consumption has ended? Truth in our time 11:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I cannot confirm that. I am not an expert in the field, and have not reviewed any literature on the long term neurological effects of alcohol abuse (although you can do so yourself, using Pubmed). The only effects of alcohol abuse I am confident about are liver and heart damage.--inks 22:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The section regarding drug and alcohol use was removed at an unknown time over the past few days...I restored it--MONGO 11:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol abuse 

message: What's with all the (see [X], [X2], [X3]) stuff? Can't we just include the citiations without the parenthesis and "see'? I would have just made the change, but it seems like it is being used widely throughout the article. If there is no reason for it being that way (not uniform with the rest of wikipedia might I add), I'll change it. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no single uniform citation method on Wikipedia.  Some articles use footnotes, some an academic ("Harvard") style, some use inline links that are automatically numbered by the software, etc.  See Wikipedia:Cite sources for more information.  On an article like this one, about a controversial current-events topic, it's typical to have many citations to many different publications, because anyone who doesn't like a particular point challenges its proponent to provide a source.  Under those circumstances, I think the numbered inline citations work best.  People reading the article generally don't need to have the flow of the text broken up by the information that this particular fact comes from CNN rather than the Washington Post or whatever.  For obvious points of comparison, see the articles on John Kerry and Bill Clinton, which also have quite a few numbered inline links. JamesMLane 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, I don't mean citing it as "New York Times, Bush realeases new social security plan, Nov 14 2004", I mean just simply removing the text "see", I think it breaks up the flow of the article and simply having numbered citations would be better. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my bad, I hadn't looked at the article and didn't realize what you meant.  The "see" before each link must have been added recently.  That's not a format I've ever seen here before, and I don't like it.  If you mean we should go back to unadorned numbered links, as in the Kerry and Clinton articles, then I agree with you. JamesMLane 04:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, that's what I meant. I've started editing it out, but given the sheer size of this article, it could take some time. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "see" 

message: I removed the subheading "filmography" because it implies that Bush was a willing contributor to the Michael Moore film Farenheit 911...he wasn't, and he isn't a star in the movie aside from Moore's comments. Besides, the movie is already listed in the "anti-Bush" section, so there is no need for redundancy.--MONGO 04:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the listing implies he was a willing contributor.  On the other hand, given that IMdB lists more than 30 other movies in which he's appeared, we shouldn't single out this one.  Giving his entire filmography would be too much detail about a comparatively unimportant aspect of his life.  I think a link to his IMdB page is the best solution, so I've added it. JamesMLane 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, "Filmography" would include films a person was in for a variety of reasons such as money, fame, career advancement, being seen, etc. etc......Bush was hardly interested in starring in a movie which spent it's entire time lampooning him...I do agree with your link to the movie database though.--MONGO 01:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: Highly POV to have no mention of alcoholism in the article at all.  Not to mention the stories of his continuing drinking, and physical and neurological impairments due to drinking.
:Do you have proof that he was an alcoholic? Alcoholism is a disease and is quite different from drinking or drinking a lot. What "stories" have you heard...do they come from citable sources that have any measure of credibility? Lastly, is there proof that his current judgement is impaired due to alledged alcohol issues, aside from those pushed by people whose sole effort is to discredit the President?--MONGO 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: my impression is that it is at least widely believed that he was an alcoholic.  that probably comes from his statement about giving up drink on his 40th birthday (to save his marriage?).  if that belief is reasonably common (needs cites), then it ought to be included as part of his public perception, whether or not alcoholism is actually documented.  certainly, alcoholism was my understanding of the drinking thing, but i don't know exactly where i got the idea. of course, if alcoholism is documented, it belongs here in a more prominent way. also didn't there used to be a (cited) "dry drunk" sentence or two? Derex 00:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, whatever the difference between alcoholism and "drinking a lot", the sidelong mention herein constitutes POVness bigtime. Certainly can't object to documenting the thire-party analysis of his early habits, without original research or hypothesizing. Gzuckier 00:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the nonscience dealing with these issues was developed in a daughter article which is linked from the main article here: George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Recently, the two major paragraphs in the main article that discussed his religious conversion, his "drinking" and the drug use were also removed and I put them back in to ensure there was some mention of the issues without having to link to them. As far as the dry drunk thing, it isn't even a condition recognized by any medical panel, it is only a terminology tossed about primarily by the quasi-cult approach of AA to ensure pressure tactics on their members to stick around until the "one and only approach" is fulfilled. Alcoholism has various levels of control over a human body but I've yet to see literature that has provided any proof that Bush is, was, or will be an alcoholic. I do know that if I had his job, there wouldn't be enough liquor out there for me to drink, so if he IS or WAS an alcoholic, it wouldn't surprise me. But I need verifiable proof before that kind of libel should be posted here.--MONGO 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: o--64.12.116.9 13:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, well i do know that george himself made a pretty big deal about how he stopped drinking at 40.  so a sentence or two about that probably belongs in the 'early life' section.  other than that, it makes sense to leave the rest to the daughter article you point out.  (or did i just miss the quitting drinking reference? scanned real quick.)  Derex 01:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Much of the American public has heard claims as to Bush's "drinking behavior" - it's at the very least somewhat common knowledge.  Regardless of whether it's a true or false, it should be mentioned.  Try to think of this page for Bush as a description for someone who's never even heard of him: should the notion that he's a possible alcoholic even be brought up?  Whether discounted or accepted, the very accusation should appear somewhere on the page since it is relevant.--NoHitHair 67.169.198.164 (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Alcoholism - present or past