Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 34

message: This section needs some cleaning up. The following phrases are confusing:
*After defeating Senator John McCain in the Republican primary, both candidates jockeyed for months for the support of moderate and undecided voters. However, election night turned out to be even closer than anticipated. TV networks called the race first for Gore, then for Bush, and finally too close to call.
*Gore had ironically won a slight majority of the national popular vote ...
I'm sure there's more to be done, but those two phrases are pretty confusing. The former jumps from the primary to the general election, and the later protends irony, but there's nothing to suggest what that irony is. glocks out 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one wasn't dealt with very well. I think the problem stems from the "both candidates" term. It doesn't establish what candidates were contending. The second one wasn't fixed either. There isn't establishment of what is "irononic". glocks out 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. but before the article stated that neither Bush nor Gore received a majority of the national popular vote, and that was factually incorrect. Jazz1979 02:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not factually incorrect.  A majority means "more than 50%".  Gore received 48.38% of the popular vote, and Bush received 47.87%, with minor party candidates taking the balance.  Thus, although Gore received a plurality, neither candidate received a majority. Brandon39 05:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's a POV opinion and shouldn't affect the content of an article? -- Tyler 08:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a winner!  ;) Brandon39 08:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election 2000 

message: While this paragraph is written well, and does offer a fair look at the topic (IMO), I am not sure the whole paragraph needs to be in this article. I was looking it over to see how to cut it shorter, but I'm drawing a blank. Thoughts?  glocks out 21:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design 

message: That 130 years figure is way off. Multiple people were indicted in the Clinton Administration and Reagan Administrations. Probably in others as well, but I know there were in those two. i.e. this isn't that historic.--WAHooker 12:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fishing for stuff...it's still no smoking gun.--MONGO 04:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 130 years

message: Do any other admins see the "protect" button on the top of the page as reading "unprotect"? The article is obviously not protected, and this is the only article that I know of that has this artefact happening for me. --Fire Star 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bug. I, as well as others, try to make sure its protected from moves. This way no one moves Dubya to STUPID DICTATOR WHO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE... etc. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Thanks! --Fire Star 20:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily though, no such protection exists for, oh say, John Kerry which is why every now and again, it gets moved to 'John Kerry IS A STUOOOPID FAGIT WHO IS RAMBO AND WANTS COMMUNISM' and so on, well, anyway....--21B 00:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible bug on the page? 

message: This is a pretty good summation. The only issue I have with it is that some of the language reads as if written by a White House PRO. Anyone else feel the same way?Fergananim 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that whole section is poorly constructed, totally redundant, and would improve the article by vanishing. Info about his family belongs in the "Family and early life" section. Info about his staff belongs in the Administration section. Info about what Ari Fleischer was doing in the third grade does not belong in a 95Kb article on GWB. 24.63.71.236 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Important people in Bush's life and career

message: I know this is an extremely important topic, but the page continues to grow, and thus, so does the size. I would really hate to lose any important information, as there's so much to say about the man, but 95 KB seems to be overdoing it a bit; we need to split this article off, as per Wikipedia:Article size. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -Mysekurity  e-mail 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  95 KB 

message: Wow I didn't know George W was this popular, my goodness, the guy has double digit archive talk pages.  I remember someone saying over on the Hitler talk page that Adolf's page was the most vandalized, I wonder how it does against this page.
:Not even close. This is by FAR the most edited page on the site, by a factor of more than two. See Special:Mostrevisions.--chris.lawson 06:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least until the next election. Then someone else will surely take that spot. --WAHooker 12:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Number of archives is irrelevant. Some of the archives here, and elsewhere, are incredibly long and could be broken down into three or four more archives themselves (17 here is 666 KB long for instance). I don't really care, just thought I'd point that out. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not anymore Matt Yeager 01:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the archives can vary in length though I wouldn't call the number "irrelevant." It's indictive of controversy generated. Marskell 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but I could go put every section of a random articles' talk page into different archives and have probably 50 archives, but put ALL the sections of this talk page (say, around 1,000 sections) into one archive and have only one. It is a matter of size, not numbers. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I vote for "Most Revisions on the English Wikipedia". Good enough? Why am I even feeding trolls? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush the most popular figure on Wikipedia? 

message: I was reading this page and noticed some left-wing POV. I moved to revert the last anon editor who inserted the POV, yet I wound up accidentally reverting another anon who had rightly removed the fluff (he had gotten to the vandalism before I did). For the future and for those of us who are new, how does one moving against vandalism avoid reverting another anti-vandal revert (and thus restoring POV vandalism)? Thank you. Saravask 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies for botched revert 

message: Adult stem cell funding has not been restricted, and is vehemently supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research. Some scientists have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for reducing funding for scientific research and setting restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
I think "vehemently" is a word to avoid in general, but "vehemently supported"??
The second sentence reads like it is saying that Bush has reduced funding for scientific research.   I suspect that this is not the case (if it is, provide a citation). It may be the case that non-military scientific research funding has decreased, but if that's the case, the qualifier should be noted, being careful not to promote a POV that miliatry scientific research is intrinsically less valuable than non-miliatry scientific research (though it may be ok to note that some scientists believe that it is less valuable). Andjam 03:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the peacock term if you're upset by it. I would remove it simply because it doesn't add to the encyclopedic nature of this article. glocks out 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The subsection on the Vision for Space Exploration seems overly hostile towards the VSE to me. Stating that the policy recieved a "largely tepid reception" implies that there's general resistance to the VSE, while it has been widely welcomed by the public and scientific community. Most of the rest of the section is objective enough, but this paragraph appears to have an unnecessary bias against Bush.VonBraunGuy 04:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science section 

message: I simply have a comment regarding this article:
There is nothing about Bush's human rights abuses. Amnesty International has an entire library of US human rights abuses at Guatanamo Bay, and at Abu Ghraib, still ongoing, today. Bush's closest advisor, Herr Rumsfeld said the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to 'the war against Al-Quaeda'....must be nice to make the Geneva Convention fit however you want it to. It applied to the Nazis, but I guess they were different. Please don't tell me Bush didn't know what Rumsfeld was doing or that he wasn't responsible for it. Anyway, see below links:
http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usai_torture (continuing evidence and confessions come out regarding recent torture at Forward Operating Base Mercury in Fallujah)
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/index.htm (Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan abuses)
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-index-eng (US human rights violations continuing at Abu Ghraib)
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/yem-040805-news-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-090905-news-eng
The US treated the Nazis better at Nuremberg than we have treated any Iraqis (or any suspect in the "war on terror" in our custody). Yet, oddly enough, nothing is said about it.
Bush has killed 2,000 (and counting) of his own people in Iraq over WMD's that were never there in the first place, tortured countless others, and when it became clear no WMD's existed, all of a sudden the rhetoric changed: we were giving our soldier's lives helping the Iraqis be "free and democratic."  Now we're seeing people killed just because we're there. 
Bush, like Chavez, has also tried to suppress bad press (the photos of coffins returning from Iraq)or any press that says anything against him. He calls those against him "conspiracy theorists" or "unpatriotic," or even worse, "Democrats" as if that party has no right to exist.
Complaints about 'US imperialism' are not unfounded. Bush uses his religion as a foundation for "manifest destiny" in that he believes "God wants him to be President," so therefore, God wants him to spread Christianity and the American way all over the world. If I were president of any other country outside the US and had oil wells, and the country coming to get my oil wells had a war in Iraq that was going badly, like Chavez, I guess I'd feel a little frightened about a superpower trying to arm wrestle me into an agreement that would favour the US overwhelmingly as well.
Never before have I seen such a long article section on any President's religion and ideology and "faith based" initiatives. What should be expressed AS WELL (teach both sides) is the concern regarding evangelical Christianity and how much it influences this presidency, how many of Bush's cabinet have been appointed who happen to share his religion, the Christian Coalitions continued attempts to stack the Supreme Court with Christian Conservatives, (http://www.cc.org/)and the undue influence of the Christian Coalition anyway in the Republican Party http://www.theocracywatch.org/about_us2.htm. (TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University).  No other President has ever created a Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives! Why does Bush feel as though he needs it?  "Religion is the opiate of the masses..." indeed. I guess he's been reading his political theory.
I appreciate the fact that all of you are trying to be fair,and you haven't done a bad job, but come on. There is nothing here about the Patriot Act and its abuses and potential for abuse, nothing from Amnesty International about the US' human rights abuses. Let's be truly fair. 
The fact Bush nominated a personal friend who was a horse show judge of course had nothing to do with FEMA's inability to perform when needed, thus making countless thousands of people suffer longer than necessary and killing more than should have died.  
I have included citations, and I voted for Bush initially, before you even start in on me. Let's pretend for a minute that we are from another country looking at this American president. Then,perhaps, we'll be less biased and less concerned with making this man look better than he does. If I want to read political propaganda, I can go to the White House site biography of Mr. Bush. I don't expect to find it here as well. 142.151.143.157 04:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, we do have a pair of articles on the presidency of George W. Bush (George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States, George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States). This article is about the MAN, not the politics. Someone who wants to know about GWB's policies and politics will get a short overview of the major ones here, and then can follow the prominent links to the relevant articles for an in-depth discussion. Of all the things that Bush is, and all the things that he's done, the Patriot Act isn't really important enough to merit significant mention here. The human rights abuses are multiple degrees of seperation away from him (People being abused at a prison that is under the control of the U.S. military that is run by GWB). There's just a lot of more important stuff to mention. That's why we have sub-articles. If you find that those aren't up to par, try improving them. (If you think the Chavez article is biased, try fixing it.) Matt Yeager 05:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I get what you're saying, but as the human rights stuff is still unfolding now, it'd be hard (very hard) to write an unbiased, concise summary of the abuses (alleged and actual). If you feel you're up to the task, be bold and do it! Matt Yeager 05:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, obviously it will be controversial. That doesn't excuse us from tackling it. The human rights abuses are ongoing, not just in Guantanamo Bay, what with the  reports of the CIA "black prisons". Of course we don't need a discussion here. A link to Human rights in the United States should be enough. What is more disturbing is that there appears to be no reference to the Bush administration's murky record on that article. I83.79.181.237 13:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, one of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that every article be unbiased. There actually is quite a bit of debate on the "bias" of other articles, too. If you keep it relatively brief, encyclopediac (i.e., not calling Bush the Antichrist), get citations, and ESPECIALLY if you list a brief note on this talk page, your edit WILL stay up. You doubt that it will? There's only one way to find out... Matt Yeager 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's human rights abuses vs. Hugo Chavez 

message: There are probably too many images on the page crowding out the text. For example, there are two images of Bush on the aircraft carrier for one paragrah of text. We should decide which pictures are the most notable to include. We should also decide which paragraphs are worthy of having a picture. The pictures not only make the article load longer, as the page is edited they move around and bunch up a lot of the text. glocks out 01:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Archived discussion.
I was looking for new polls given the new senate look into this topic. I can't seem to find any recent polls. I did find this on the Zogby site though, it seems to be contradictory to what is in our article. (This is even linked directly after our article's figures).
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country. (...) A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.
We should find the right numbers though (both links in our article show different numbers than in our article).
Right now I'm happy with how the paragraph is written. It has been worked over well. There is room for improvement though (just need the right numbers), as more polls come forth in the next few weeks. glocks out 02:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this a dead issue...what exactly is Congress doing to move forward with an article of impeachment?...nothing from what I can see.--MONGO 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is in the context of "public opinion," and as such public opinion polls are useful in gauging public opinion. It's not so much a dead issue as the Senate is finally looking into what this poll is asking about. That is, misleading congress into approving the war. glocks out 18:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The numbers are correct.  There have been two Zogby polls and one Ipsos poll.  Do not confuse the numbers from the two different Zogby polls. I have found a link to the more recent Zogby poll, and I am adding that to the article.--RichardMathews 10:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's impeachment 

message: you should add something along these lines:
Pick one in regards to Bush's comments before the Iraqi war:
A)  Bush lied to pursue his own end
(thus, using Iraq and the American people as means to this end - using American people as means in that he lied to them to get his end, without that lie they would never have agreed to his radical aggressive nature... and iraq as a means too obvious to state.  And furthermore, if he can lie so easily about such crucial matters, what would make anyone think he is not lying to us now to meet his own end....  think about it.)
B)  Bush and our gov. intellect is in complete utter lack as they are unable to decipher, interoperate, and report the evidence they receive.  
(thus, such lack of intellect is in the hands of the most powerful and wealthy country in the world jeopardizing the very survival of humanity... so then, we ought to evaluate ourselves, encourage a pre-emptive strike against or own potential aggression (as it is far more apparent then the aggression Bush claimed Iraq/Saddam had).  Furthermore, it would be necessary to stop any production of and eliminate all nuclear weapons that are in our hands as such threatens humanities survival)
and/or
C)  Bush and our government acted rashly upon slight information.  Being rash before properly analyzing what was available.  
(thus, if we justify this action based upon such errors, we justify any rash action that Bush or any future leader might base upon the slightest doubt or fabricated documentations)
My bets are A.... It is my opinion that Bush's intent was simply for personal gain and exploitation of Iraq under the casus Bellus of a false understanding of terrorism and even more so the anger from 9/11 being misrepresented as an Islamic/Arab phenomenon rather then just an individual radical group. . .  Was it worth 100s of thousands of Iraqi lives...  Was his lie worth thousands of American lives?  Are we just going to stand by and watch this attempt for Western countries to exploit yet another country based upon false ideological arguments and even more so a false representation of christianity?  How many times has christianity been used to support militaristic agendas?   Why does the church support such agendas?  Thanks to this one political leader, I feel that both are politicians and our church leaders have pissed on the very powerful and moral words of a man who fought peacefully and died in the name of love.  They pissed on Jesus and all he stands for.  They pissed on humanity in its entirety.  No more exploitation.  No more lies.  This is my opinion, and you have the right to disagree - but You must respond in detail for some rational for his lies, ignorance, or simple rashness - and how any of those three can justify a war and allow for us to continue to support such lies, ignorance, and rashness.  to me, only a fool would support a guy who demonstrates any of those three especially in the face of such a thing as a war resulting in such catastrophic that we now see before our very eyes.
think about it.
149.169.45.2 wrote this section but didn't sign it.(Prodego talk)
:Thank you 149.169.45.2 for your opinion. I would counter that everybody (i.e. other countries... even France) thought Saddam had WMDs and through the combined intelligence, made a case for war, but I won't do that. I would say that even the Democrats agreed that Saddam was a threat going back for years, and show you the quotes, but I won't do that either. I will however thank you for your opinion. Thank you. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being facile. If France and and "other countries (who?) in that case thought Saddam was such a threat, why then did they not join with Bush in invading Iraq?Fergananim 00:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Troll feeding at User talk:149.169.45.2. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liar 

message: That heading I moved from within the "campaign" heading to where it more properly fits. Of course, it still seems out of place. Maybe the entire article can be broken down into both terms? There are articles for both terms though ... I'm thinking out loud right now. glocks out 19:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First term 

message: This should be changed to Ronald Reagan - the page Reagan is a disambiguation page. - syndicate 10:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan in first paragraph 

message: I know it doesn't sound POV, but isn't it legit to say there are questions about how seriously he takes his faith (says he reads the Bible every day and then can't back it up with any detail?)
Also, Methodists aren't all "a denomination that espouses a more socially conservative worldview" .  That's a wierd statement to make.  -Jcbarr 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion section 

message: Couldn't the way Homeland security is set up right now become a risk for our own personal libertis, freedom, and privacy.  Personally, I would rather risk the one in a million chance of another terrorist attack then to risk losing those three.  In fact, it seems that Bush is more interested in fighting Iraq then Terrorism.  If he was truly concerned, where is the border protection?  Furthermore, how come he spent so little of OUR money on going after Bin Laden (who was directly connected to 9/11) yet so much of OUR money on fighting Iraq (who was not connected to 9/11 much less terrorism in general)?  It seems like just a simple Casus Bellus to get support for his war.  (In fact, I could add that our actions in Iraq has created far more 'terrorists' according to Bushes standards - though my standards would call 90% those Bush defines as 'terrorists' of Iraq as 'rebels against western control' who would never have laid a finger against the U.S. or any western country if we would not be attempting to economically take over their nation and also create a puppet government under our 'Western wing'.)  
Shouldn't the posible misuse of 'homeland security' be addressed?  From my experience with it, it merely seems to be monitoring American lives more and invading into their liberty, freedom and privacy rather then preventing any type of 'Terrorism'.  I could be wrong, but I do wander what others think.
Are we looking at a police state in which life has no freedom, liberty or privacy?  If that is the future, tell me so I can prevent myself from reproducing, because such a world is not the world I want my children in.
Thus, I think there needs to be more negative things about homeland security on this page.
:If you really feel that way, you might want to look for the Homeland Security page, not the Bush page. And please, stop trolling. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeland security 

message: When did the talk page become a depository of opinions? glocks out 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since before you were born. Mwa ha ha! Matt Yeager 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed but this is not a general discussion board about George W., it is a talk page to discuss the article.  Therefore please kindly keep your opinions to yourself unless they are in direct relevance to something that is written in George W. Bush. -- Francs2000  01:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In other words, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. android79 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page 

message: I put up a warning tag on the page with a template of the article. We should keep this page protected as long as it gets much vandalism(years perhaps) but keep it like this. That way, the actual article is actually unprotected, because it is the template. Only the Vandalism Warning is protected, so vandals cant just delete it. If templates have issues with being that large, then we can have inline page links like the mainpage and RfA, I just don't know how to do them. Jtkiefer reverted this, as it is not supported by a consensus yet. So that is why I brought is here. Lets have a vote.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented the voting sections for now - let's discuss this rather than just vote on it. — Dan | Talk 02:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nothing. But at least our new readers will know why is says "Bush is the most incompetent editor ever" or "Bush is a huge loser". Basically it helps to prevent readers from getting the impression that wikipedia is baised due to POV vandals. Obviously if just says "FUCK BUSH" then they know that is vandalism, and likely does not represent Wikipedians. Semi-protection is the only way to help protected the template; any other way just seems like, as JamesMLane said, admin "imperialism", even if the admins are unbaised. However, people seem to dismiss semi-protection quite a bit though.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We cant revert as soon as it happens, the page will just be POV or "SKREW BUSH" for hours of the day total, sometimes actually hours at a time.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, sometimes we do revert as soon as it happens. The CVU watches this article continuously, and we have in cases reverted the vandalism within 10 seconds of it occuring. Titoxd(?!?) 03:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "sometimes". And sometimes it goes for a few hours. Even when it only last for a minute or 30 sec, when you add that up over the day, that could be 20 turn-off readers, 140 per week, 560 per month, 29,120 per year. And that is for the good days. If we semiprotect, it would go notably down...ahhhh semiprotect. At least a tag will allow for users to who don't know how to use Wikipedia to access older, good, versions. If the tag scares people off too much, then we can change its wording to tone it down and still get the message accross.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: At any rate...this article needs to always be protected from moves.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: I'm not much in favour of this but I'm also not much against. Ultimately Wikipedia ia an encyclopedia more than it is an experiment in wikis. We currently run a system where we rely entirely on bad edits being reverted. If there are too many vandals and vandalism to a page is causing problems, then we should look at modifying the system. Admin-only editability is an option we should at least consider for high-profile pages which are many peoples' first contact with wikipedia and are often vandalised. The downside of this is that there aren't many admins, and there are other options. The Land 10:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me Voice of All. Just not sure the updated eekly thing is best wording...maybe have it say updated frequently or something like that.--MONGO 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we have not yet really decided the update rate, daily would be great. Any admin can just paste in the public one, assuming no vandalism. If there are content disagreements, thee we vote. I would like it if "we" could be any non-sockpuppet user, not just admins. Admins would simply execute the consenses, as they generally due already.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Warning Tag 

message: With an article like this one the vast majority of edits are vandalism, moreover since the page is so controversial even experienced editors should discuss any edits before making them. Rather than a template system, which is essentially security through obscurity, I would prefer the idea of leaving this page protected for the foreseeable future, but having a template directing editors to the talk page to discuss changes. On the talk page editors will be able to propose any changes they feel should be made, and admins can then implement each useful suggestion. For fairness even admins should not be allowed to edit the article directly, but should have to have any changes approved by another admin. This would be extra work for admins, but it would be vastly less work than the constant reversions. - SimonP 15:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: I'm not much in favour of this but I'm also not much against. Ultimately Wikipedia ia an encyclopedia more than it is an experiment in wikis. We currently run a system where we rely entirely on bad edits being reverted. If there are too many vandals and vandalism to a page is causing problems, then we should look at modifying the system. Admin-only editability is an option we should at least consider for high-profile pages which are many peoples' first contact with wikipedia and are often vandalised. The downside of this is that there aren't many admins, and there are other options. The Land 10:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection proposal by SimonP

message: I would like to have the article look like this We have a tag that vandals CAN'T remove(because this page would also be protected), which containts the link to the good page, so people will know where to go if it says "BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE". Anyone can still edit the tagged page, just not the tags. This seems like a good idea. The tag I origionally had had limited use, but if we have this tag, use a template for the public(editable) GWB page, we have good meausures that stop vandals from scarring off our readers. The grey tag is needed to elimitate protection confusion. I hope someone can get the EVP tag down to 2 text lines(removed "center" command?), then it would look much better. I made an alternate doubletag bases on the experimental vandalism proposal oneVoice of AllT|@|ESP 23:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me Voice of All. Just not sure the updated eekly thing is best wording...maybe have it say updated frequently or something like that.--MONGO 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we have not yet really decided the update rate, daily would be great. Any admin can just paste in the public one, assuming no vandalism. If there are content disagreements, thee we vote. I would like it if "we" could be any non-sockpuppet user, not just admins. Admins would simply execute the consenses, as they generally due already.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge experimental protection AND tag proposal

message: This is a popular article.  People will always vandalize it, and as Wikipedia becomes more popular it will tend to be vandalized more.  To protect the article would be to stop people editing it.  Think about that.  Why would we, who profess ourselves to be engaged in writing an encyclopedia as a collaborative enterprise, deliberately render the article impossible to edit?
The vandalism gets removed, so why bother protecting? Because for a good proportion of the day the article contains the sentence "Dubya is a poopyhead?"
If this article is on your watchlist (and it must be on a thousand watchlists) then the thing to do if you notice that it's been vandalized is to remove the vandalism.
If you intend to edit the article and you notice that it has been vandalized, remove the vandalism in the course of your edit.
If you happen to be reading the article and notice some vandalism, remove it.
That is all that is required to defeat the vandals.  There's absolutely no reason to stop everybody editing this article, just because of a few poopyheads. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When 90% of all edits to a page are vandalism and a vandalized version is shown for at least an hour a day, that is not acceptable.  I have personally stopped bothering to check what is going on in this article because to do so would require a page comparison between the current and like 60 versions ago to identify any meaningful contributions to discuss.  Rendering an article "impossible to edit" is greatly exaggerated: one simply has to go through, what is in my experience, the easiest account creation page ever.  Eliminating drive-by vandalism would remove at least 75% of vandalism on this page, if not more.  Those who are committed to building user accounts purely for vandalism sake are much easier to track.  Holding to your dogma, what do we do when a page gets vandalized 100 times a day?  1000 times?  What happens when 99.9% of all edits to a page is vandalism?  How can anyone wade through the history to make sense of the direction in which this page has taken? --kizzle 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism and this article

message: Does the following statement in the last line of te first paragraph have any proof to substantiate it's claim? "He is also a recovering alcoholic who has been dogged by accusations of drug use for most of his adult life." This is a rather damning accusation and I have seen no literature that substantiates that Bush is a recovering alcoholic. Though there is plenty of evidence that he did drink, such as a DUI conviction and his own admittance of alcohol use, there has not been anything that I am aware of which states that he ever as an alcoholic, much less a recovering one. Additionally, has he really been dogged about drug use? The question has surely been raised and he coyly sidestepped the issue, but I don't see that he has been "dogged" by this issue.--MONGO 07:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that that sentence is immature name-calling and should be removed. It's not appopriate to include such a damning and negative sentence in the first paragraph of the president's bio.  Jazz1979 21:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this utter POV nonsense, which is by no means citable.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Bush read about a goat to florida kids where is the information about that?? MAO
:See The Pet Goat. Coffee 09:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture was in this article, with a short explanatory caption and a wikilink to The Pet Goat.  It was removed in the course of an effort to improve the spacing.  I've restored it. JamesMLane 17:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goat 

message: Don't. Unless there's something immediate and particularly serious that blocks cannot deal with. An example might be obscene link spam that won't desist resulting in protection for an hour or two. User:Hall Monitor in particular seems to have adopted a personal policy of regularly protecting this page for days at a time, which I really do not think is either useful or appropriate-Splashtalk 15:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vprotecting this page 

message: Can't someone lock this page? It's being vandalised on average every ten minutes! Izehar 17:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  petty vandalism 

message: I removed this falsehood from the article: "His cabinet appointees were largely white Republican men of his father's staff, with a few exceptions like Colin Powell for Secretary of State." Powell, Norton, Veneman, Chao, Martinez, Mineta, Paige, and Abraham are not white men. Norm Mineta is even a Democrat. In his first term I believe Bush matched Clinton's record for diverse appointees. I believe Bush's only cabinet level appointee who was highly involved with the Bush 41 administration was Rumsfeld. Rhobite 17:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that didn't really make sense to me either. Good edit. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if you could replace text to help the flow instead of being only a "deletionist." 216.68.118.211 15:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather remove an obviously false statement from an article and hurt the flow a little than leave it in the article. Rhobite 05:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Republican men