Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 33

message: Could somebody please fix this page so that it's readable? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Someone has created 
I Second that. Wow his rating has dropped yet another 5 percent. We need to update this!--Ewok Slayer 18:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious as to why no one simply asked me to update the previous image, which I made.  Anyways, I've put the replacement up for deletion and have uploaded a new one which reflects the change more accurately. --tomf688{talk} 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update the Approval Rating Graph

message: Wasn't Bush a cheerleader in college or whatever? If so this is worth brief mention in the first part about his early life since it is a frequently sited (or shown) thing. It may not say anything about Bush really nor is it a detail that is significant in itself of course and I'm sure there are loads of other small details that are not mentioned but this detail is worthy of mention IMHO because it has became a frequently cited part of Bush's early life. A short & simple line will do... 60.234.141.76 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I must start by saying that if you want it in the article, you probably should not write, "It may not say anything about Bush really nor is it a detail that is significant in itself of course". You are basically proving it's non-notability and unencyclopedic nature. However, if you can prove it is a very notable item in his life, then do so. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheerleader 

message: A new section is necessary to talk about Bush religious believes. It is not a secret that Bush talks about God many times in public and that takes pride of being a "Christian". Besides his religiosity has had an impact in the way he conducts himself, his government and all the US international affairs. --tequendamia 21:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Religious Beliefs and Practices is the second section. Also, with 88k articles new sections should be avoided as much as possible. Marskell 22:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Religious Beliefs and Practices" section seems (to me) to be fine. No need really to add another. Besides, the title "Bush and God" sounds a little strange, IMO. Banes 05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new section "Bush and God"  

message: I read through this section and it didn't seem biased. Although it should be noted that earlier this week his popularity amongst the african-american community showed only 2% favor in the polls. glocks out 00:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity and civil rights

message: This page obviously isn't a candidate for long term protection.  Just revert vandalism. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (cough)... semi-protection... (cough) --kizzle 02:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I know this was instituted by Golbez and the blocks helped keep vandals away from the page. Anyway, I don't really have an opinion about the matter but that notice has been there for a while, so it seems as though there's a consensus for that for this page. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK - I rolledback myself. If anyone wants the warning back in feel free to do so I guess :) (even though it seems against blocking policy). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We might as well take it out, but I see that Golbez was only trying to head people up and inform them that vandalism to this page was not going to be tolerated in any way...it doesn't seem to be working though.--MONGO 09:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There does seem to be a bit more vandalism than there was.  I feel that just treating this page as we used to worked quite well, and it probably only provokes more dedicated vandals to treat it as a special case.--Tony SidawayTalk 11:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my edit summary here when I reverted vandalism, questioned whether the labels were just further invitation...a challenge of sorts.--MONGO 11:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Let's not participate in this thread. By doing so, we are feeding the trolls. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark and decide for yourself.)  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 22:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm sure you know, the arbitration has already been opened, but you tried to hide that fact because the unsubstantiated claims in the request for arbitration serve your purposes better than the truth.  By the same token, it's pretty obvious that you are trying to keep people from thinking about the truths found in the Declaration of Independence as well.  But evidence of those truths hits the main article dozens of times every day.  Instead of working with the people who are frustrated at President Bush, you try to suppress them, pretend that no frustration exists, and call anyone a troll who suggests otherwise.  You are blatantly misrepresenting the facts and you have this vandalism to show for it.  You merely have to open up a history book to know that it will only get worse as long as you hope to control the will of other people.  Instead, you can misrepresent the facts and use the increase in vandalism to ask for more administrative control, but that only feeds the beast that will ultimately consume you.  --Zephram Stark 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not agree that Zephram is a troll. He is discussing the article in a rationale, calm manner. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently have no clue what a troll is.  Zephram has no interest in Wikipedia.  He is only interested in making others upset.  That is what a troll does: makes posts with the intent of making others upset.  It has nothing to do with being calm and rational.  If he wasn't a troll, you could show one constructive thing that Zephram has written - ever. Kainaw 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a troll.  Message board trolls came from the word trolling.  My friend Johnny F. used the terms troll and trolling back in the days of mainframe message boards to mean that he was trying to lure someone with an inconsistent reality into talking about things the catch believed to be truths, but were no more than constructs.  After Johnny asked a dozen or so fringe questions, the reality of the catch would come crashing down around him.  After Johnny became famous, people would ask him if he remembered trolling them, like it was some great honor.  --Zephram Stark 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really lame. --kizzle 02:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to realize that anyone who could access a message board back then was no idiot.  These were all mainframe programmers and network administrators, MENSA members and similar, so trolling was quite a challenge and even involved risk that you could become the catch if the other person's reality was more stable than yours.  Take the Unalienable Rights discussion on my user talk page, for instance.  That conversation started when I saw ElectricRay out trolling on some of the political discussion boards with the question, "Can anyone make a solid argument against Bentham?"  I said, "I'll bite," which told him that I knew he was trolling and also that I was willing to play the catch if he was willing to risk it.  He was pretty good at questioning my reality without admitting his own for a while, but his absurdist views kept hinting that he didn't believe in God.  Eventually, I got him to demand that the conversation be conducted based on the premise that there was no God.  That's when he became the catch.  In the Eleventh Dimension section, I used a parable to show how a demand for a Godless reality was fundamentally no different than a demand for a God-based reality.  I then evinced a more consistent test for subjective morality as "a professed belief that nobody in the history of the world has ever been evil."  A rational thinker could never believe a person could be evil, of course, but ElectricRay's exclusion of God-believers betrayed such a fundamental bias.  I never heard from him again.  --Zephram Stark 13:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting someone to admit inconsistencies in their argument is called debating, not trolling. Why your friend would get famous for simply trying to point out holes in another person's worldview is beyond me. And congratulations on winning a debate with ElectricRay.  I hope you win many more. --kizzle 18:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah...what good does adding a section of critisms of GWB do...half the subarticles are attack pages against the man. I don't doubt Bush has endured the most critism of any President in the history of the world wide web...Clinton was on the scene when the web was younger and fewer people had net access, and Bush is a current event, so no wonder it Googles more. As far as whether terrorism is worse due to Bush's actions...nah, I don't see that...it's about the same, but there hasn't been anything to rival 9/11 which was mostly planned out prior to Bush being sworn in the first time...I also think that in some ways, Bush et al acted with more restraint than I would have...good thing I didn't have few MOAB's at my disposal on 9/11.--MONGO 01:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting rid of this thread 

message: # EricN 09:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Those in favor of a seperate section for trivia

message: # MONGO 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Those in favor of keeping trivia within the body of the text

message: In 1999, near the start of the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, Tucker Carlson interviewed George W. Bush for Talk Magazine. Carlson wrote: - - "In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Fay Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, "What would you say to Governor Bush?" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." I must look shocked--ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel--because he immediately stops smirking." Bush denies that he had intended to make light of the issue.
I added the source just like Mongo wanted and the some jerk reverts the whole thing whithout saying why -- Grazon
::Grazon keeps adding an article in the "Presidential campaigns" section which is being removed because of its obvious irrelevance to the campaign. In fact, the "interview" is irrelevant to all of the GWB article. There is no context for this article at all. glocks out 20:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the entire 2000 campaign is five paragraphs long. It would be a poor editorial choice to add a full paragraph which consists of a paraphrased quote from an opinion article. Karla Faye Tucker's case deserves at most a single sentence in this article - it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. I feel like I'm repeating myself whenever I write a message on this talk page, but we have to keep in mind that this is one of the most-read, most-scrutinized, and largest articles on Wikipedia. This is a "big picture" article - narrow issues such as Bush's reaction to a question by Tucker Carlson do not belong here. Rhobite 20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A simpler reason: copyright violation. EricN 20:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest offering additions and deletions in this discussion before actually adding/deleting content. In an article of this nature it's important to find a consensus first to avoid a war.glocks out 20:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlson Interview revert war 

message: Why are so many critics cited on this page?  It seems like every other sentence or statement of Bush's is met with several sentences of what his critics say.  Wouldn't it be more NPOV to simply state what he says, and perhaps mention "there are criticisms of this policy" or something along those lines?  --JamesR1701E 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So many critics cited...

message: As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised alleging voting irregularities, especially in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In 2004 they did not lead to recounts that were expected to affect the result. After a congressional electoral contest -- the second in American history -- failed with votes of 1-74 by the Senate and 31-267 in the House, a lawsuit challenging the result in Ohio was withdrawn, because the congressional certification of the electoral votes had rendered the case moot.  The challenge had been based on a report issued by the Democrats on the House Judiciary committee alleging "massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies."
I've been staring at this paragraph for half an hour, and I still don't see where to begin. It's a messy summary of an even messier article, and it doesn't do much to inform the reader.  Unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch, I'm going to delete it. EricN 21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't really have to do with "Bush the man", so I would say delete it. But just make sure somewhere in the article there is a mention of possible irregularities in the election. I'm not sure how you would re-write that. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I say delete it since this is an article about George W. Bush, not the events of the 2004 election. Perhaps a sentence like the following can be added to the section about the 2000 election controversy: "These claims emerged again in the 2004 election in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but the challenge was withdrawn because the congressional certification of the electoral votes had rendered the case moot ." Or something better. glocks out 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear "the events of the 2004 election" directly relate to "George Bush the man." What do we want? His height, weight and marital status and leave it at that? The paragraph is messy I'm just not sure about the logic being employed here. Marskell 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The events of the 2004 election are not George Bush. In an article about a person, you relate events to that person, not the other way around unless that person is responsible for what happens. An article about one person doesn't need to document all the actions of everyone. The events of the election were the effects of millions of people. The result was Geroge W Bush was elected into office. This is important to the facts relating to George Bush. The paragraph in question isn't related to George W Bush, it is about controversy around an election process. There is a difference between a process, the people in Ohio, Wisconsin, etc, and George Bush as a person. As stated earlier, it is worth mentioning, but we don't have to document all the facts related to this event in an article about a man. Seriously, where do we stop? I hope i'm making sense. glocks out 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 Election...troublesome paragraph

message: I'm trying to write about Bush's playing the guitar on August 30th.
how is what I've written not a NPOV?
grazon 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <-- This is probably a better place to write about Bush playing the guitar
funny EricN.
grazon 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any ideas? 

message: The entire Hurricane Katrina section isn't about George W. Bush. It doesn't even relate directly to him. It's about Hurricane Katrina, and should be in the Hurricane Katrina article, not the George W. Bush article. As a matter of fact, a lot of this article should be in here because it's either about the Bush Administration, or world events, and not about the person that is George W. Bush. I don't want to put a bunch of "mergeto" tags on this article either. I would hate to see Geraldo Rivera's article receive the same treatment as this one, we'd have a paragraph on every interview he's ever done. glocks out 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, but should I write about him wiping his butt in the morning? Or maybe we can create a pretty table showing everything he's ever done in his life and things related to it? This article seems to get bigger and bigger because people keep adding onto peripheral subjects. There is a "main article" for Katrina, we don't need a three paragraph section about it in the George Bush article.glocks out 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the fact that every day 30,000 people die of starvation when 1% of the national GDP could feed the entire world doesn't matter? What matters and doesn't matter doesn't correlate with what goes in an article about someone. Should we find out what George Bush was doing during the World Series? Or maybe Yom Kippur? Are we trying to keep track of every time this man sneezes and chronicle everything he's ever done, and write three paragraphs on events happening during everything he does, or are we trying to write an article about a man? Are we going to find out every time he was interviewed and make sure that gets in here too? An extensive and comprehensive database of everything about this guy? glocks out 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina 

message: There's been some edit warring over the hidden block warning at the top of the article ("Anyone who vandalizes the page may be blocked for 24 hours or more without further warning"). In order to get consensus on whether it is OK to block people for vandalizing a high-visibility article, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Instant blocking for vandalizing high-traffic articles. Rhobite 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instant blocking for vandalizing high-traffic articles 

message: In August 2004, a "Cyber Security Alert" from US-CERT was issued concerning the main vote tabulating software in the electronic voting machines provided by Diebold,  warning that "a vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account, which could allow a local or remote authenticated malicious user to modify votes". Corrective action to close this software loophole was never taken, and it is yet unclear what effect this may have had on election results.
It would take some major word twisting to get this paragraph to even mention Bush's name.  I think that's a good benchmark for something that doesn't belong in a Bush article. EricN 16:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree glocks out 18:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another deletable paragraph 

message: In July of 2002, Bush cut off all funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced abortions and sterilizations in the People's Republic of China.
I expect this para has been through the wash a bunch of times, but I don't like the wording.  "cut off all funding" seems incorrect (it's also funded by other nations) and POV (funds were shifted to a US agency with similar goals...maybe mention the isolationist aspect?). For now, I'm just going to add the least POV reference I could find (BBC News).  Anyone want to try to improve this one? EricN 18:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording a hot-button topic 

message: The page is now 92 KB. I can tell this is a pretty important issue, because there are something like 30 talk pages, but as per Wikipedia:Article Size, we have to break this off into sub-pages, DESPERATELY. Once this is done (effectively), I think this should be re-submitted for peer review. It is truly a great example of how a topic like this can bring people together to create a great encyclopedia article. Let's see Brittanica try to top this! -Mysekurity  e-mail 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: What's with the spacing on this article? - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They've gotten messed up.  Feel like fixing them? :-)  EricN 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing of Headers 

message: Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. 
He has denied the allegation made by J.H. Hatfield in the book Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President (1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has refused to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.  Hatfield, a convicted felon (solicitation of capital murder), was unable to provide any evidence for his accusation and his publisher, St. Martin's Press, suspended publication and recalled his book because of this unsupported accusation about George Bush. 
A whole paragraph written in the negative?  If someone wants to reword this so it reads as "A said this.  B happened.  C responded", etc. go ahead.  I'm dropping it in its current form of "A denied this, B refused this, C couldn't provide this". EricN 16:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Deleteable Paragraph 

message: How long does a newly registered user wait (hours/days) before they receive the ability to move pages? Hall Monitor 18:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is right away... let me register another account and check on it. -Greg Asche (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I am fairly positive that there is a short delay, in the neighbourhood of 48 hours or so, between account registration and the ability to move pages.  Before I write a proposal, I would like to know exactly what the length of that delay is.  Hall Monitor 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please hold/move this discussion elsewhere. Thank you. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not entirely off-topic, as it relates to several of the threads above.  This is not meant to be a drawn out discussion, I'm just looking for an answer; do you have one?  Hall Monitor 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just registered a new account and there is a delay, someone on IRC told me you can't move pages if you are in the top 1% of users by registration date (i.e 99% of users registered before you). -Greg Asche (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Greg for the follow up, that is quite a strange way of delaying privileges but there you have it.  Please accept my apologies if this tangental conversation caused anyone any sort of inconvenience.  This thread is now closed.  Hall Monitor 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic: Page moves 

message: United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has declared he shares a close political relationship with the United States known as the "Special Relationship" was asked by several parts of the media and anti-war protesters in Britain to apologize for backing his friend Bush just prior to the 2005 UK General Election, he declined, saying "I can't say sorry, I have nothing to be sorry about, I believe I did the right thing".
*Good paragraph for a Tony Blair article.  Bad paragraph for a GWB article.  Yoink. EricN 20:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another deletable paragraph 

message: Image:Bush approval ratings line graph Feb 2001 to Oct 2005.png|thumb|250px|left|Bush approval rating from February 2001 to October 2005. Notable spikes in his approval rating followed the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the beginning of the 2003 Iraq conflict.
Autopilot updated this today, and it has already been cut and reverted.  It is clearly relevant to the article, but the latest graph is not accurate to the CNN/Gallup poll data it references.  I'm reverting to Aug/05 graph until the update is fixed. EricN 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This graph is way to POV and those who want it in know that. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   01:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity ratings 

message: The following paragraph contains a completely unsupported allegation and an innuendo statement.  The facts related to the "expunge" accusation have been removed to "juice up" the story.  The allegation was made by a convicted felon in a book of which the publisher cancelled and recalled because the allegation could not be supported in any way (the source of the allegation was removed - I guess somebody wanted to hide the fact this allegation was totally debunked).  The tapes only present innuendo based on a hypothetical statement - maybe Bush did it and maybe he did not.  This paragraph has been turned into spin and must be removed:
:Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [6] He has denied allegations that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine posses george bush deserves to burn in hell. he is a stupid asshole and needs to be die. sion in 1972, but has refused to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [7] In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [8] [9] Wead later admitted he had illegally recorded Bush without his permission. [10]
The George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article is where this kind of information should reside.
On a second point, this statement is factually incorrect: "He has denied allegations that family influence was used to expunge the record" - there was only one accusation - made by a convicted felon in a failed attempt to sell books. 
-LastVisibleDog 23:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll notice further up, I already tried to cut that paragraph (an older version...GregAsche reverted and Voice of All(MTG) split the difference), so there's no need to take my "juice up" comment out of context. I don't care if the content stays or goes; I just think the writing is hollow. Let it sit for a few days, and if people want to keep it, I'll try a rewrite. EricN 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of, I don't think that anyone seems to care for this needless poll. Secondly, I have made another edit to the section. It also links to the author of the book instead of taking up article space.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 12:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...with that edit, I'm in favor of dropping this bit.  If the page is going to say the allegations were both unsupported and denied, linking to an author who does not appear to be otherwise notable, then I'm not sure why we have this tidbit at all.  What about just merging the Wead stuff into the prior paragraph? EricN 12:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A completely unsupported allegation and an innuendo statement 

message: * delete Rex071404  216.153.214.94   01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Those in favor of deleting

message: Well, I thought that the article was in serious need of being smaller, so I took the "further reading and info" and branched it off into a daughter article. It's not much, but I think it's a good idea (the list didn't REALLY belong in the article anyways, as NONE of us are actually going to go through and make sure that all the books are notable--really, let's be honest ;) ).
Any thoughts? Matt Yeager 03:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I gave the subpage a more formal name (List of books and films about George W. Bush) and moved the 'see also' out of its own section and placed it with the rest. EricN 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Matt Yeager 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Info and Reading

message: There is debate about whether the U.S. had evidence of Iraqi WMD or ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. A bipartisan intelligence review found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, although the report did conclude that Hussein's government was actively attempting to acquire technology that would allow Iraq to produce WMD's as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted. The report also concluded that Saddam's missiles had a range greater than that allowed by the UN sanctions. The report found "no collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Bush has defended his decision, arguing that "The world is safer today."
I need a reference to the report quoting "no collaborative relationship".  I want to pull WMDs out of this paragraph, since they are covered in the previous one, but that leaves only:
There is debate about whether the U.S. had evidence of ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. A bipartisan intelligence review found "no collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Bush has defended his decision, arguing that "The world is safer today."
...which is pretty thin. Anyone have this reference?  I can't leave the quote in without it. EricN 12:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need reference

message: This page has grown out of control. It is fine if someone already knows a lot about Bush and can use the current outline to go tho the hurricane katrina section or something, but for other people It would be impossible to trace his presidency over time. I am suggesting we add an outline broken up into mounths that spells out in chronological order each action and event in his presidency. Like a tax cut here, court nomination here or a hurricane. This outline would be at the beginning of the page and each event in the timeline would link to diffrent sections in the page, what do you guys think?----Ewok Slayer 16:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States.  Both could use a mop and a scrub brush. EricN 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline needed 

message: Sorry bout that Appleboy and anon. With these wide diffs hard to see all the changes on screen sometimes. I reverted it back when Fire Star did a rollback, should stick now. - RoyBoy 800 04:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't care about black people 

message: About the sentence he married Laura Welch, a Democrat librarian originally from Midland.
*First, the grammar point. Is this sentence correct, or is there a better way of stating this? Should it be  a ...Democratic_Party_(United_States)|Democratic  librarian... (with  instead of bold)? 
*Second, is there a source that she was a democrat?
Autopilots 06:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of changing it to "Democrat", but it didn't flow very well. When you say a senator is a Democrat you would say "Democratic Senator", so the form is fine. But it is confusing to say "Democratic librarian" because librarians usually don't have political affiliation. on the Laura Bush article is says her family was Democratic, but doesn't mention her affiliation. I say take that one word out, as it's irrelevant anyway, and we're good. "... a librarian originally from Midland." glocks out 20:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Question

message: Does anyone have a link to the Bush family's alleged connection to the Nazi party? -- Thearticulator 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi History?

message: Following a bit of...fun...with moving, and recursive redirects; deletion and undeletion and complete loss of article history, we've now got this talk page protected against moves. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 03:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected from moves