Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 40

message: When can I become an established user?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EKN (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you can correctly make a headline. The Republican 01:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Established users 

message: Who cares about neutral point of view? Bush is EVIL, you can't be neutral about that. Even if people put stuff that was completely false about him in order to slander his name, there's nothing wrong with that as long as it makes more people dislike Bush. If the government lies to get people to like him, why can't people lie to get other people to hate him? 199.79.168.160 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. You can easily find another outlet for the type of expression you desire. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanna trash George Bush, go to Uncyclopedia. The Republican 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bush article should be unlocked

message: Under the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Religious_beliefs_and_practices|Religious beliefs and practices], it says "His decision to name a religious figure generated some criticism - even among religious conservatives such as Alan Keyes [8] and Bill Kristol". However, Alan Keyes was running against Bush at the time, and the reference was a Crossfire interview. At the time, Keyes's comments on Bush are hardly a neutral prospective. 
Barneygumble 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement that Keyes' comments be 'from a neutral perspective', just that they inform the article and corroborate any assertions. I simply do not see the problem you suggest with this section. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but anything a politician does or says while running for office will be "generate some criticism" by SOMEONE. The wording creates a POV that saying "Jesus" was huge political blunder, which it wasn't.Barneygumble 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious beliefs and practices 

message: This is the official Wikipedia policy on weasel words:
[i]Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give a statement the force of authority without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.
For example, "Montreal is the nicest city in the world," is a biased statement. So as to support the biasing while keeping with neutral point of view, one should give arguments and cite sources for the statement. However, application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."
Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative. Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance?
Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.[/i]
When you have a section that refuses to give any specific attribution, and refers consistently to everything as "His opponents believe" "His critics say" "His supporters believe", this is hearsay plain and simple!!! BlueGoose 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with what you say. But you used a bad example. Montreal clearly is in FACT the nicest city in the world. ;) Loomis51 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, except that if Montreal is in fact the nicest city in the world (or merely the majority view that it is), then there is absolutely nothing weasely about writing that as fact. It may become necessary to include references to support this statement if it is widely disputed, but it is also true that cluttering every other word with a reference does nothing to improve the readability of an article. Sandpiper 12:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words in article 

message: That's all well and good, and I applaud Bush for that.  However, whenever the page becomes unprotected, I feel it will be necessary for purposes of balance to add that Bush is also the first American president to support a constitutional amendment which would legitimize discrimination against homosexuals.  We have to be fair and balanced, of course.  -Kasreyn 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we have to be NPOV. There's a difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's quite a leap you made going from supporting that constitutional ammendment to declaring that it "legitimizes discrimination against homosexuals."   It sounds POV to me.  You can alsways say he supported the ammendment.  But to draw the conclusion you did is a problem.  --Tbeatty 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that we're in agreement about adding the information, then, since I will naturally take pains to ensure that it is represented in a NPOV manner, as I always do.  Thanks!  -Kasreyn 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking out of curiosity, which amendment do you speak of? - 65.100.195.54 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed "Defense of Marriage Amendment".  You hadn't heard of it?  -Kasreyn 23:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats concerning state constituional ammendments you're looking for the Federal Marriage Amendment, its a household name. --mitrebox 23:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, my mistake.  Well, Federal Marriage Amendment or Defense of Marriage Amendment, the name doesn't stop it from being intended to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals, and his outspoken support for it was one of his campaign pledges to his "base".  It definitely deserves mention.  -Kasreyn 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to not mention the constitutional amendment would paint a false picture of Bush -- I vote either mention the amendment, or remove the 'first president to have an openly gay man in his cabinet' distinction.--Xiaphias 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that would be my position, too.  I'm having a hard time finding a source that simply and flatly states something like "President Bush announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment".  Most of them are articles about some OTHER politician talking about Bush's support, or Democrats railing against it, etc. etc.  The original announcement seems to have been drowned out in the debate.  -Kasreyn 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." - George. W. Bush, 2/24/2004 Brandon39 12:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Balanced would be something like giving two bias opinions. Ann Coulter Vs. Al Franken or something like that. NPOV gives you the facts without the bias. This is how I understand it.  Davidav87 10:58, 5 March 2006
My understanding of NPOV is that the information provided should be displayed for the purpose of offering a fuller picture of the person in question. Since it seems to me Bush both genuinely supports the US Constitution Federal Marriage Amendment and was the first to appoint an openly gay man, they both warrant inclusion. The way it is displayd, however is where we may get into issues of bias. They both belong to very separate areas, unless we insert a specific Views on Homosexuality section or something (which I believe would actually be helpful for users specifically seeking such information). Binerman 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First to appoint an openly gay man" 

message: A couple of minor but worthwhile points I think should be included:
* the article currently says "trained for two years".  This should probably read "served on active duty for nearly two years" as I believe his AD time included time in an operational squadron, and his AD time was about 22 months.  (By comparison, the article on Jimmy Carter doesn't distinguish between his time nuke and sub school and his other AD time.)
* given the ongoing AWOL fuss, it probably should be mentioned -- something perhaps like "While the exact details of his time in the TANG because contoversial campaign issues, he was honorably discharged in 1972."
* Actually, while he may of been honorably discharged, it was 18 months earlier than the end of his tour of duty, because he failed his dental exam.
-- Charlie (Colorado) 17:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Service 

message: and my teacher says I'm a terrible writer and gave me an D+, then called me a pinko... is this a sign that this article is poorly written liberally slanted crap?--205.188.116.138 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you get what you pay for. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily; please see "academic dishonesty". Accurizer 16:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I copy/pasted  my term paper from this article 

message: The article doesn't include the incident with the pretzel and the page is currently locked so I can't insert it. Can someone else do it please, as I am unable to do so.
:So get a user id and do it yourself.  The reason the page is locked against anonymous users such as yourself is that it is constantly being vandalized by anonymous users.  If you want us to trust you, create an account.  -Kasreyn 07:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, but, to be fair, (s)he still wouldn't be able to edit it.  it also protects against newly created usernames. --jfg284 you were saying? 13:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh?  That's weird.  What's the criteria then?  How "old" does a username need to be to qualify?  -Kasreyn 07:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 days, according to the policy. -ZeroTalk 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the point is that we don't require anyone to register to be able to edit. (Well, except for this page, seemingly) --LV (Dark Mark) 22:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have been clearer... we don't require anyone to register to be able to edit, nor should we. Logged in users can vandalise too. AND it provides them more anonymity. For proof that they do it too, head over to RC Patrol for awhile. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretzel 

message: I removed the following:
:Critics point out that most families do not have significant funds to put aside for additional retirement savings, most individual investors are not skilled at the management of complex financial instruments, and that both the Social Security and health care funding changes simply permit employers to spend less on benefits for employees, whether employees are able to replace the benefits or not. Individual employees are also weakly positioned to negotiate for better, or less expensive care. Perhaps most significantly, individuals who develop chronic illnesses relatively early (before age 55) are unlikely to have set aside sufficient money to even minimally meet the costs of their own care.
Can we please have a source? Which critics? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info removed (hopefully temporarily) 

message: There is a mistake about his second inauguration. Here is written that his second inauguration was in 2000!!! And it was in 2005!
: Thanks for pointing that out. It has now been corrected (by User:Rogerd). I note that this error came in during an edit by User:Jtdirl at 21:20, 11 February 2006. - Hayne 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that another error relating to the date of Bush's first inauguration was recently fixed by Shaileshnandwana (edit of 00:59, 1 March 2006) - this error was also introduced by the same edit by User:Jtdirl at 21:20, 11 February 2006. These errors show that the fact checking process is much impeded when a large edit (changing many things in many places) is done. I strongly encourage people to do edits in several small pieces rather than one large one - it makes the diffs much easier to read. - Hayne 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inauguration

message: Shouldn't there be some reference to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and the belief amongst many people including the British Cabinet member Peter Hain and the Archbishop of York that Camp Delta breaks Internation Law??? I feel that this has been overlooked by the people who have previously edited the page, surely this controversial issue and Bush's refusal to close the camp deserves some mention! Also, linked into Guantanamo, shouldn't there also be a mention of Extraordinary Rendition? This is a particularly controversial issue in Europe as we discover more details of the flights landing in European airports. This issue should not be just swept under the carpet which is what is happening at the moment Hypergreg 13:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guantanamo Bay 

message: I found a litle mistake in the text below his ground zero image. There is writen "will hear all of us soon." and right version is "will soon hear all of us." I know this for sure.
:Actually, no. It is "will hear all of us soon." See  and . --LV (Dark Mark) 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground Zero 

message: http://www.carlsheeler.com/articles_impeachment_GA.asp
--James S. 08:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, exactly, is the point of this? android79 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A publicity stunt by a man running for Congress in Rhode Island. Anyone remember the Democrat that was pushing the bill to restart the draft until just after the 2004 election? After he got his political benefit from the bill suddenly he wasn't voting for the bill when it came up in Congress. PPGMD 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if they can be verified, they are not directly pertinent to the article. Try discussiong this at Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush instead. The full text of the "amendment" is not necessary for discussion and is likely a violation of applicable copyright law.  android79 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay --James S. 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, it is appropriate.  Deleting other people's comments on talk pages goes against archiving.  --James S. 05:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY IS IT APPROPRIATE, JAMES? -- Stbalbach 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The link is still there. Why did you feel it appropriate to post three pages of cited material on a talk page? That's akin to spamming. --Mmx1 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Spam needn't be archived. android79 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles of impeachment from a Rhode Island senate candidate 

message: Isn't it about time to update to Economy section of the article? The unemployment rate is at 4.7% which now matches the rate when he took office for the first time, which seems relevant to me, and the employment numbers adjusted to population growth should be looking better to almost even when he took office since the unemployment rate is back to it's initial state. Your figures on that piece are 8 months old! 134.233.132.6 09:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the Economy Section 

message: Will you please Let this page be edited?68.96.23.7 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can be edited -- I made an addition this very day. However, you must establish a Wiki identity rather than post from an anonymous number. That seems a reasonable enough requirement. --Cubdriver 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Really. Pull yourself togeter and make an account man! The Republican 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there are stub sections and sections which lack sources. Worldtraveller 01:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good article with section stubs??? This must be kind of a joke. A good article must not have section stubs and lots of sources and references. If this can be cleaned up, it can qualify for a good article again. --Terence Ong 06:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: This page should NEVER be semi-protected, either it should be allowed to have open editing, or  Please, admins, this is important!
It's a wiki, this will always have vandalism, live with it. Also, yes, he is a high-profile figure, but so are other politicians like John Kerry. --Katrina Whitmare 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes. It should always be open to vandalism [sarcasm off]. In all actuality, it should enjoy the same protection that every page on the Wiki should enjoy, no less. --Mhking 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a pain for editors to fix all the vandalism and it really hurts Wiki's image when schoolkids click here and get %%$##@.Rjensen 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe said school children should stop vandalizing the article by adding %%$##@ in the first place, then they wouldn't have to get %%$##@--152.163.100.74 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Katrina Whitmare" turned out to be a vandal who has now been blocked indefinitely. -- Curps 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And seems to have come back as a new, if not less ironically named sock/vandal/troll--152.163.100.74 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protection

message: Made a few edits, in the interest of NPOV and readability - plus, I threw a few factoids in as well. More than happy to discuss, etc. Please be assured this edit is made in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harper's and Impeachment

message: Maybe the question should be can anyone include anything they know are "Bush" truths?  Start with those, take the remainder, and add to the lies section.--Ban.WMA 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Known Truths?

message: The current version of this page requires some low resolution readers to scroll before hitting the Table of Contents.  Does anyone else think that floating the TOC as seen in this version make for easier reading? xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The floating TOC causes a very narrow column of text in my browser, and that is something to usually avoid. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, the easy way to take care of that is to trim the excessive intro. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC listing 

message: Can someone put the new CBS approval rating for this month in the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.245.98 (talk • contribs) 
Thirty-four percent, his lowest ever. Still slightly ahead of Nixon, though. --James S. 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like he still hasn't hit Clinton lows either, if I'm reading it correctly.  --Tbeatty 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this, Clinton's lowest poll was 36%, two points higher than Bush's 34% low. --Mr. Billion 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: When a President is unpopular, many people in the moderate end of the spectrum who would normally self-identify with the President's party will indeed identify themselves as "Independent."  It is not necessarily that they are over-sampling Democrats (it would seem odd that every poll would do so as a coincidence) but rather quite possible that some of the people who previously identified themselves as "Republican" have now decided to identify as "Independents", at least for the poll.    ⇔    | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's crazy talk right there, clearly it's a liberal conspiracy--205.188.116.138 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That may be true, about the moderate end and stuff, but take a look at the polling information. You can look it up on CNN and I can provide a link if need be. But if you are having in the last election (2004) 37% R and 37% D then you still need to use that info until the next presidential election. If you are calling up people, and that is what poll takers do and they identify themselves as independent, then you don't poll them unless you haven't fulfiled the I percentage. If you can get a poll like that. Rasmussen seems to be the most accurate when it comes to doing this as well as predicting voting outcomes then nobody on either side of the political spectrum will have cause to complain. KLRMNKY 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Approval Rating 

message: I would move to add "Recently, some have also disputed Bush's assertion that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy. According to Tom Potter, in a New York Times article, implementing Kyoto standards has actually improved the economy." after the sentence, "In January 2006, six former EPA directors, five of them Republican, warned of the consequence of continued inaction on global warming." 
It would then read: "In January 2006, six former EPA directors, five of them Republican, warned of the consequence of continued inaction on global warming. Recently, some have also disputed Bush's assertion that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy. According to Tom Potter, in a New York Times article, implementing Kyoto standards has actually improved the economy."
The reasoning behind this add is that it is a dispute over the economic effects of Kyoto in addition to the environment. 
--Ecopirate 03:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addendum to Kyoto Protocol portion of Environment and Energy 

message: I'm not contesting the need for some sort of protection beyond tens of tireless vandal-beaters watching the page, but the sprotected notice clearly says that semi-protection is a temporary measure, as does Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Could somebody in the know please clarify how long this article is intended to be semi-protected? BigBlueFish 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Unprotection? for a typical response. -Splashtalk 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Hmmm...With the recent events regarding Iran, should a portion be added to the page dealing specifically with this? I'm putting it out there for those of you who do have edit rights. I'm still a bit new. Ecopirate 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is semiprotected...what edits do you have to add?--MONGO 21:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: It's missing from the page: Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Michael Chertoff.
:Done, and FYI, 2003 is the correct date as it wasn't until then that DHS formally became a cabinet post.  --Easter Monkey 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeland Security needs to be added to cabinet posts 

message: IMHO, if it's going to be mentioned on the page that the contributions for AIDS funding is more then everyone else combined, brief mention needs to also be made of the controversy surrounding this funding. I don't know what exactly but perhaps something like: "However there is controversy surrounding the direction and restrictions placed on the funding". Nil Einne 19:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS funding 

message: This article says "... he was among the last to learn to fly the F-102, a plane not used in Vietnam and due to be retired."  The F-102 article states otherwise, with quite a few facts regarding its roll in that conflict.  Ottergoose 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The snarky comments are unwarranted. In any case, the F-102 was indeed used in combat missions in Vietnam (quite a number were lost), and were still doing so when Bush signed up for the Air National Guard. Later, Bush inquired about joining the combat detachment in Vietnam, and was told only then that he had too few flying hours and that the F-102 was being withdrawn from combat anyway. So to claim (as some here are evidently intending) that he joined a unit that would never see combat, or that he actively shirked combat while in the unit, is false. — Impi 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F102 in Vietnam 

message: The official version claims that he did so in the mid 1980s. This video strongly suggests that is a lie.
Please explain, if you care to do so, why this article should not be changed to say something like:
"Bush has admitted to abusing alcohol, and even though he claims to have quit drinking altogether in the mid-1980s, he seems to have relapsed at least one time since then. In Lubbock, Tex. in 1992, he attended the wedding reception of his friend Jamie Weiss. During this event he was filmed apparently consuming alcohol while already in a state strongly suggestive of inebriation. Moreover, the video shows that Bush repeatedly mocked Weiss and other individuals for not drinking alcohol, which would be strange behavior for the teetotaler he was supposed to be at the time."
Remember, history is not tantamount to a criminal trial. I certainly should not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bush drank alcohol at that party. A preponderance of evidence is more than enough to warrant mention, and any reasonable person would agree that the video provides that. 
Wfgiuliano 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I went and viewed the video, despite my slow, dial-up connection.  I don't see that it proves much of anything.  Bush's "interview" seemed obviously scripted.  His speech did not appear to be slurred -- if anything, he was speaking more clearly than he sometimes does in off-the-cuff remarks made in public today.  As to what's in the glass -- who knows?  Ginger ale?  Club soda?  Bacardi 151?  There is absolutely no excyclopedic value in a staged, 60 second video. Brandon39 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  66% of American adults drink alcohol...what's your point again??? Jeravicious 17:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 66% of all Americans aren't the head of the federal government.. what's your point? sockpuppet--152.163.100.74 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I echo your point. If we're looking to provide the truth here, I believe we should include this. Of course, this may mean poking around every person who claims they are sober--be it athletes, celebrities, anyone who warrants an entry on Wikipedia--but if they say it, I believe it should be examined. Politics is based on appearances, but if you're caught in a lie you are caught in a lie. And while I know it was said in jest, living in a political city and all its social implications doesn't force you to drink; addiction forces you to drink. I think this is notable and am glad it got brought up, but this in no way proves with irrefutable facts that he continues to drink. Hell, it could have been a tragice relapse from which he avowed to pursue his recovery further. But it's something good to keep in mind. Thanks for letting me put in my two cents.66.108.114.0 07:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, this is what you call "original research." You see a picture of Bush with a glass in his hand, and begin speculations on whether the glass contains alcohol. Even the Democrats don't bother to sniff his glass. And you want to put it into an encyclopedia? -- Cecropia 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand your rationale, but I find it interesting especially in the light  of the fact that he has been so adament about giving up alcohol. Perhaps a bracketed  clause ie. [A video circulated on the Internet of Bush at a 1992 Lubbock, Texas wedding in which he is rumored to have been drinking.] or something along those lines. And while yes, we didn't sniff his drink, people don't gulp the last drops of water or Sprite like Bush did in that clip. This is not being political, this is remembering events that transpired. Oceanboy66.108.114.0 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OR, and not verifiable. We don't list every rumour about a person. That's not what encyclopedias do. You may want to try a blog of some sort. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, it would be better gossip if we found out that Bush grabbed Teddy Kennedy's drink off-camera and finished it off on camera. LOL!! But I still wouldn't put either point in an encyclopedia. -- Cecropia 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted Kennedy drinks? Is this thread closed yet? --LV (Dark Mark) 17:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this encyclopedia stinks of partisan chicanery just as much as DU and FreeRepublic. Take care. Oceanboy69.86.38.77 16:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Has Bush quit drinking alcohol?

message: It's been more than ten days since the last test unprotect. The edit patterns of this article have been radically changed over the two months or so of semiprotection.  Edit rates have plummeted, particularly in the past couple of weeks, while even with semiprotection vandalism rates have risen high again.    Remember that the 24% vandalism revert rate in the last column equates to approximately half of all edits being vandalism-related.  That is quite close to our highest ever rates of vandalism prior to semiprotection, while at that time the incidence of editing was about ten or twenty times what it is now.  So what is semiprotection doing for our article?  Well it's certainly driving away all kinds of editors.
I've instituted my regular unprotect and I (or someone else) should restore semiprotection, subject to vandalism, in a few hours.  It is essential that we capture this data.  --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever can be said for your other points, I don't see how semiprotection drives away "all kinds of editors." -- Cecropia 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You'd have to show that the vandalism didn't occur because you keep lifting the semi-protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This was one of the reasons I opposed (and still oppose) constant semiprotection; I don't doubt that it reduces vandalism, but it also appears to lower the number of "good" edits and hinder progress on the article. Tony, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at your data, but in your opinion, from your several "tests", what is your opinion on the effect of semiprotection, judging from the data? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to remove the semi-protection, which has been enabled for a week. Superm401 - Talk 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection

message: I'm planning on merging in some of the more obscure issues listed here. --James S. 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obscure is right..obviously that data would be better linked from a Department of Labor info page than some private website.--MONGO 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that that's your own personal website, I'd say no. android79 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge plans 

message: miami herald BBC news reports of bush trying cricket with Inzamam-ul-Haq and Salman Butt. Quite funny too. --HamedogTalk|@ 11:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this  President is first search result under the word "failure" for Google :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was included, and then it was removed because it someone's opinion, as well as a "Google bombing".http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/google.asp Squiggyfm 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be included? 

message: I am not sure that this is note worthy, seems a bit POV as well. Thoughts? --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but to remove it breaks the purpose of categorization. Keep it. --Golbez 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why catergorize him for a part he didn't deliberately take a part in? IMHO this seems completely unencyclopedic. Looks like Hall Monitor can feel safe about the 100 bucks posted to get this mess of an article to FA status...it's hopeless.--MONGO 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether the Razzies are a joke award or valid film criticism is subjective. Some of their politician nominations/wins were probably meant and jokes, and IMHO weren't entirely appropriate since the Razzies are supposed to dishonor acting. Then again, removing it because we disagree with them would be POV on our part.--Fallout boy 20:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you ask me, politics these days is at least 50% acting.  Why else do you think Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzenegger got elected?  If FDR ran for president today, the sad truth is he wouldn't have a prayer.  It's largely about who looks better on television.  So since being a politician is so dependant on image, I think a Razzie for a bad "performance" has a certain sardonic justice.  -Kasreyn 10:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And that' why it's POV. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Academy has a lot of critical clout and has been known to make political statements before in their choices before. While the Razzies are indeed intended as a joke, it's a political jab that makes people sit up and notice. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  07:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Worst Actor Razzie|Worst Actor Razzie]]

message: I've removed a paragraph just added by Dahveed323 as being extremely biased and not fitting with WP:NPOV. Here's the paragraph:
==Vetos==
President Bush may become only the second U.S. President to forego the use of the veto throughout two terms in office. To the surprise of many, however, President Bush has threatened to use his veto power for such incredible purposes as scuttling a defense appropriation bill during wartime in order to keep out language prohibiting torture and to protect the right of a foreign government-owned company to have operational control over several major ports within the United States during a period in which port security is both grossly lacking and subject to political backlash! More suprisingly, the government in question, Dubai, was one of only three to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan and from which two of the September 11th hijackers haled.''
I just wanted to bring this here for discussion. In addition to being biased, the paragraph doesn't cite any sources at all. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the information there may be true; I've certainly read about some of them. However, given the extreme POV wording of the paragraph along with the lack of any sources, I decided to remove it and bring it up here for discussion. Remember, this article should be as neutral as possible and as verifiable as possible, too. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the info is almost all true (UAE as 1 of 3 to recognise Taliban, origin of 2 hijackers; Bush never used veto, but threatened use) but it reeks of POV and anti-Bush bias. I thought the part about never using the veto was already included, but I'll have to check on that. It's been awhile since I've actually read this whole article. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Yep, its in the other issues section. No need for this paragraph. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraph

message: 1) The Razzie category should stay, categories are for categorization, not POV fights.
2) I moved them all to the George W. Bush category - if it exists, then why not declutter the article? --Golbez 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. Mirror Vax 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Well, I can't really say I'm pleased, but for once I want people to vandalize this page. No offense, Bush!
Freddie 04:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hello. Please excuse me if I formatted this addition incorrectly. I've never written on a Wikipedia talk page, and was confused. I think your even trying to mainatin a wiki page on President Bush was hopeless from the beginning. As a current president, how can anyone see Mr. Bush and anything he's done in office with the measure of objectivity provided by historical distance? The vandalism and the depth of the sniping--i.e., it's even on the talk page itself--should have been expected. Vandals vandalize the page, and anti-vandals vandalize the vandals. Round and round it goes. You writers are wasting your time here. If I had been in charge of Wikipedia, I wouldn't have bothered with this topic. 68.99.211.67 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as an encyclopaedia it's our responsibility to try, even if failure seems certain.  Ingoolemo talk 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, no one is in charge of Wikipedia (although some people's opinions get more respect than they should).  Second of all, this is critical information.  Wikipedia is an information source, and as such should provide people with things they need to know about anything significant.  Will this article change in the future as we gain historical perspective? Of course.  But that's no reason to ignore the topic altogether until then, especially with a topic that so many people want and need to know about. --Kahlfin 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless?

message: Please add the link to the Occitan article oc:George Walker Bush. Thank you Joao Xavier 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link has already been added in. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add: link to Occitan wiki

message: I noticed most of the people who opposed this article to become a featured article opposed because it has been vandalized so much so it would attract more vandalism. We are giving up to the vandals by doing that. We might as well give up and leave this encyclopedia if its vandals can control an article becoming a featured article. We are giving them too much power. I think we should nominate it again to be a featured article to stop vandals from having a choice. Tim Q. Wells 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not now. There were several objections about the prose of the article, which still needs fixing. The vandalism magnet isn't an actionable objection, in my opinion, but the rest should be fixed before trying. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: Since the page is blocked, could someone please add LB to the interwiki list ? lb:George W. Bush'''
Thanks
Briséis
:Done. --W.marsh 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding interwiki link 

message: Oil profit for wealthy oil companies from Iraqi oil:  15.4 Billion (+)
U.S. soldiers dead: 2,300 (+)
U.S. taxes: more and more being allocated to Iraq
Iraqi dead: tens of thousands (+)
WMD:  0
Years: 3 (+)
Bush's 'expected' troop removal date:  2009 (+)
Money spent to fight Osama (a KNOWN terrorist): Pennies relative to the Billions upon BILLIONS upon hundreds of BILLIONS of the AMERICAN wealth spent on fighting Iraq, not connected to terrorism.  
Insurgents who are rebels who would never have even thought about terrorists like attack had we not invaded their country: Thousands (+)
Number of global protesters:  More then history has ever known
Illegal spying
Torture
Propaganda and PR games
Cultural ignorants towards Islam and other cultures fostered.
Forced Americanization
Forced westernization
Massive world CONTROL deemed as the method to end terrorism.
Nations being fought rather then attempting to fight terorist organizations directly.
No justified reason to attack Iraq.
A president and an administration who HAPPEN to be connected directly and 'indirectly' to the oil company which is making all the wealth on Iraqi oil.
A president and an administration who happened to get filthy rich through Bush's tax cuts early on.
etc. etc. etc.
Do the math, what do you get?
:This has nothing to do with the article. --Golbez 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OOOHHHHH I know - let me guess! An editor bent on introducing POV in an article???!??!? Just another star in the night T | @ | C 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Re-elected? --LV (Dark Mark) 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. -- Cecropia 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah not so funny if you live in the US. --kizzle 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not looked over this article well yet, but I hope that some of the above relevant facts are mentioned in this article. Giovanni33 03:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Doing the math, I get 42... does anyone get anything different? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Bush is 43... Clinton was actually 42. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush, gotta love him 

message: Reverted edits as follows:
# the comments on Bush's national guard service are duplicative of the main article on that subject, which is linked to;
# the additions on AIDS, etc., are a POV evaluation of policy. -- Cecropia 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thes entinal's edits 

message: Shouldn't the article make some mention of the fact that Bush has done more that any other Republican to rehabilitate the image of Richard Nixon, namely by making him look like a master statesman and a man of integrity, and making everyone nolstagic for his period in office?  195.93.21.137 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Brandon39 04:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it, my history textbooks have always called nixon a master statesman and a man of integrity, much in the same way that they call reagan an all american hero who single handedly defeated the evil empire by sheer force of will, I blame the liberal media for revising history in a way that makes it *look* like the two of them were crooks, much like it has done to george bush, hopefully some day a history text will be written that can see through the pack of lies put out by the liberal media, and can show his true roll as savior of the human race--205.188.116.138 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps, but I still reckon Bush is helping Nixon look like a pretty good President even in the eyes of the liberals. That's no mean feat. What Bush needs is for Santorum to become President in 2008, and they'll all be begging the Shrubster to return.  195.93.21.137 (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Nixon