Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 43

message: The version that keeps getting reverted to is inaccurate.  It suggests (by use of the phrase "continue to show...40%" that the approval rating is considerably higher than it is (latest numbers 32%).  I don't understand how having the latest polling information can be considered non NPOV.  Can we please discuss this here instead of maintaining an inaccurate representation of the reality?  What reason could there be for not wanting current information in the section on public perception?  Thanks!  tej 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about, Capitalister? Kevin Baastalk 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you should read up heavily on Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines.  "Common modus operandi for republicans to simply generate lie numbers"?  First of all, why would they generate poll numbers like the one Bush is in right now?  Second of all, do you have a source for that claim that doesn't link to democraticunderground.com? --kizzle 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's "blatantly obvious" you shouldn't have any trouble finding reputable sources claiming bush's poll numbers are "lie numbers." --kizzle 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it. --kizzle 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll tell you right now that the people who run the site probably have a conservative bent, but you won't find a major poll they leave out of the average.--RWR8189 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following sentence is unclear:" Polls conducted in early 2006 showed an average of around 40% for Bush, up slightly from the following September, but still low from a president coming off of his State of the Union Address, which generally provides a boost." How can an early 2006 poll be "up from the following September?" How about http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/ as a statistical combination of all the various polls? The current "Bush Index" for the second half of April is an approval rating of 34.5, the average of 7 national polls.Edison 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  public perception section--why object to current polling data? 

message: http://www.activistcash.com/
you're kidding, right?--205.188.116.138 03:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *absolutely not a source, no matter how many times you blank and/or reinsert, it's still not a source of anything other than unintentional humour--205.188.116.138 07:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for the personal attacks, your last few socks were so boring, this one has flare--205.188.116.138 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've got a sockpuppet coming after me from nowhere calling me a sockpuppet.  Hmmmmm... very interesting.  Why not sign in with an I.D. Mr/Ms "Anonymous IP" Sock-Puppet?  Or are you afraid of something? Like.... the truth?--FairNBalanced 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please, stop feeding the trolls!  Kasreyn 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "''[[Center_for_Consumer_Freedom|'source']] provided does show this statement''"

message: were i to respond tounge and cheek to this nonsense, i could add this source to the Second term section to explain that geroge bush is actually far too liberal to be the president of the united states, and insist that either the entire section gets deleted, or my link stays, but I'm not going to do that, and do you know why? oh yes, becasue unlike one of us, I'm not an overtly passive aggressive sockpuppet designed to make other people seem more reasonable compared to me--205.188.116.138 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for the personal attacks, your last few socks were so boring, this one has flare--205.188.116.138 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've got a sockpuppet coming after me from nowhere calling me a sockpuppet.  Hmmmmm... very interesting.  Why not sign in with an I.D. Mr/Ms "Anonymous IP" Sock-Puppet?  Or are you afraid of something? Like.... the truth?--FairNBalanced 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please, stop feeding the trolls!  Kasreyn 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: my turn to issue ultimatums

message: -Hi, 
I saw on Ronald Reagan's page a link referencing songs about him. George Bush Jr. has also been the subject of many songs, so I thought it would be interesting to include a page with references about George Bush Jr. in songs and maybe in popular culture in general. After all, he has been depicted in numerous tv shows, animation series, comics, books, films, sketch shows, songs and been imitated by numerous comedians and so on. I would be happy to write this page if here is consideration that it would be an interesting new part to information about him.
And to calm down George Bush Jr. 's supporters: positive depictions may be included too, naturally...
- I think this would be a very interesting idea due to the very large selection of songs.
Perhaps start a list to be added here?
::I dunno... maybe something along the lines of List of popular culture references to George W. Bush? Just a thought. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this list might be large enough to put in another article, since it is about references to the President in the media, not the President himself, which this article is about. ---Idiot with a gun 01:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Question

message: I don't know what the title of this section was supposed to be, but I'm fairly certain it isn't "ism."--DCAnderson 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I fixed it.--DCAnderson 21:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titled "ism" 

message: * Doesn't Belong at all because it is a minor chapter in the presidency of George Bush. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the GCS report belongs/doesn't belong 

message: I ran a search through the article for "citation", and found everything marked "[citation needed]":
*He trained in the guard for two years, where he was among the last to learn to fly the F-102, a plane not used in Vietnam and due to be retired.[citation needed]
:Done.  I changed the sentence slightly to accurately reflect what the source actually says.  I also removed the sentence immediately following the citation regarding Bush's promotion to 1st Lieutenant as it doesn't add anything to this very long article.  
*Bush was later honorably discharged in 1974, having fully completed his required time in service obligations. However, critics have argued that he used a considerable amount of drugs during this time, including cocaine and alcohol.[citation needed]
:http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine - I think this article has some good points regarding the cocaine debate. If you were to integrate the information located in the aforementioned article with less emotionally charged language, you could add credibility to the claim, while maintaining that it is not fact. In addition, you could review the sources used by realchange.org and cite them. Also, I think this is too controversial to be presented as fact, rather, it should be represented as a controversial statement, stating both positions in the manner.  What do you guys think?  I would not remove the uncited statement all together because among those who wish to believe the worst is true about George W., this could bring some speculation backed with logical reasoning to radical anti-bush fanatics.  My English is poor, so I hope you understand.
*In the televised Republican presidential debate held in Des Moines, Iowa on 1999-12-13, all of the participating candidates were asked: "What political philosopher or thinker do you most identify with and why?" Unlike the other candidates, who cited former presidents and other political figures, Bush responded "Christ, because he changed my heart." His decision to name a religious figure generated some criticism, even among some neoconservatives such as Alan Keyes [18] and Bill Kristol.[citation needed]
*During his Presidency, Bush has also hosted celebrations at the White House for non-Christian holidays such as Ramadan [19]. He also took a stand to retain the White House's main "Christmas Tree."[citation needed]
:I tried looking for evidence of this about a week ago and didn't find anything.  I don't think it really adds anything and since it can't be supported I'd like to remove it.  Objections or discussion?  --ElKevbo 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Not the best source, but good enough for now.  Please add a better one if you find it.  --ElKevbo 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  See below.  --ElKevbo 06:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  --ElKevbo 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations needed 

message: The Whitehouse website contains a press release covering Bush's remarks on the New Vision for Space Exploration Program, see . It would be nice if someone updated the citation.
Rmckeeth 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks so much for finding this!  --ElKevbo 01:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. That addresses the issue nicely. Got any more? 8-) --CTSWyneken 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Requested citation found: New Vision for Space Exploration Program== 

message: Thanks for doing the slog through references. As one who does this for a living, I can appreciate the work. Good work! --CTSWyneken 22:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way to go, ElKevbo! 

message: "During his presidency, there have been three federal executions (however, it is notable that all three were convicted and recommended for death sentences by jury before Bush came into office).[citation needed]
Does this really need a citation? There is a List of individuals executed by the United States linked in the sentence which gives the dates of the three executions. Evil Monkey - Hello 08:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a hotly contested article, it is always wise to cite a source outside of the wiki for neatness sake. Thanks for doing that! It improves our work here. --CTSWyneken 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: In some manner it needs to be noted that the findings of the Democratic staff are not endorsed in any way by the Government Reform Committee or the House of Representatives.
The report is unofficial and independent from the committee.--RWR8189 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waxman Report 

message: Primarly to reduce its length (it's too long for one issue in an already-long article about President Bush), I propose changing the [current] section about the UCS report to the following:
:On February 18, 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report alleging that "the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy".Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. Physics Today noted that "a strongly worded statement signed by more than 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, charging the administration with manipulating and misrepresenting science for political gain" accompanied the UCS report.  More than 8,000 signatures have been added to the UCS report, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences.Statement Signatories, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. President Bush's science adviser, Dr. John Marburger, responded to the UCS petition with a 20 page rebuttal asserting that the "UCS accusations are wrong and misleading [and] the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions."
I made the following changes:
* (minor) Slightly changed the Physics today quote and sentence to make the sentence more active
* Removed "by 62 prominent scientists" as that is covered in the following sentence.
* (minor) Removed "Since that time" from the beginning of the "8,000 signatures added" sentence as an unecessary phrase
* (minor) Grammatical correction (from "which includes" to "including" - the signatures are still there)
* Greatly shortened the quote from Dr. Marburger.  It was overly long for an article about President Bush.  I believe I have retained the important information that there is serious disagreement with the UCS report from at least one prominent scientist.
* Removed the reference to Dr. Marburger's alma mater.  Stanford is a fine school but this added nothing to this already-long article.
* Removed the reference to Dr. Marburger's Ph.D..  Not only is already noted with the title "Dr.," I'm sure interested persons can go to his article to find out more about his education.  I think the titles "Dr." and "President Bush's science advisor" convey more than enough experience and prominence.  Again, this is just an effort to reduce this section to its minimum acceptable length.
Have I added to the discussion or added to the mess? :)  --ElKevbo 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This looks good to me, except, we should ask if any scientists disputed this report. If so, we should mention that, too. --CTSWyneken 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for UCS Report 

message: It seems heavily biased to have George W. Bush as one of the only presidents who has a section about Drug and Alcohol use.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow7789 (talk • contribs) .
:Agreed.  Lincoln was a notorious drinker, as was Ulysses S. Grant.  The latter was also a daily user of cocaine (cocaine-based wine products were popular at the time).  This material should go in their respective biography pages if it isn't already.--csloat 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, go add information to those other articles.  Don't treat it as an excuse to remove notable, sourced material here.  Kasreyn 01:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bush's alcohol use led to conviction for a crime, in this case DUI; crimes are a matter of public record, and the public record is not "heavily biased."  The known DUI was in Maine, however it is commonly known that Bush had his Texas Driving Record purged while he was governor of the state, which hints toward more impropriety, ans several "rumored" offenses have surfaced, but they should not be noted without solid verification.  More importantly, Bush is on the public record stating that he is a recovering alcoholic; the first President ever to make such an admission.  Noting facts which Bush himself freely offers hardly seems biased as long as they are offered in careful context.66.209.31.30 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, let's also not forget Richard Nixon's well known penchant for popping prescription pills-csloat 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  That is a problem in the other articles, not this one.  If you have verifiable sources, then please add information to the other Presidents' articles.  --ElKevbo 13:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: painkillers?  Was that it?  I thought he was also taking steroids for the Addison's as well as Ritalin, Demerol, and amphetamines.  There were rumors of LSD use as well as I recall.  Who wants to do the presidential drug research?  Sounds like a fun research project ;) --csloat 06:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Shadow7789, have these replies answered your NPOV objections to the Alcohol Use and Allegations of Drug Use section?  I'm prepared to take down the NPOV tag now, but please, reply here if you still feel the section is not neutral.  Cheers, Kasreyn 04:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a bit vague - can you please clarify your question?  Are asking for more links on the GWB article or more information about the Kennedy/speed accusation?  --ElKevbo 14:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug and Alcohol use 

message: I prefer not to engage in ad hominem arguments, so here is my take on the quote itself:
#"The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week..." = biased, inflammatory. 
#"That seems disingenuous." = opinion.  
#"...according to scientists quoted by Gardiner Harris in yesterday's Times."—then we should get that quote instead. 
#"It's obviously easier and safer to issue a brief, dismissive statement than to back research..." = opinion.  
#"...the administration's inflexible opposition..." inflexible as defined by whom? = opinion.  
From Newspaper of record: "...the [U.S.] government does not (and can not) define certain papers as having a right to print or otherwise restrict or license newspapers. Therefore, in the U.S. a newspaper of record is generally any public newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically unbiased." Fine, the NYT is a newspaper of record.  Yes, their opinion is notable.  The quote in question does indeed contain factual information.  But as it is an opinion, and presented as such, it isn't appropriate for this article.  As I stated above, it might be relevant and indeed notable to include this quote in The New York Times article to demonstrate some characteristics of their editorial staff, but not here. --Easter Monkey 04:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Easter Monkey, do you have something from a clearly conservative viewpoint that rebuts this? If so, I'd love to see it in the article. Oh, BTW, see  my comment at bottom of section the NYT Quote section.--CTSWyneken 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neh, honestly, I'm just coming in and out—saw this discussion and threw caution to the wind.  I did see your suggestion though and thought that that approach would be much better.  Although I must say that the phrase, "every POV of significant support should be in" kind of gives me the willies.   --Easter Monkey 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An analysis of the NYT quote in question 

message: I added this link yesterday, but it got removed, the person saying that it was biased.  I understand completely though I have put it back, but will not again, at least for a while.  All that I will say is that even though now it does seem to be biased, the people at that site are putting in quite an effort to make it unbiased, and that soon we will probably have people from different points of view at that site.  Also, I personally feel that even if the site is biased, no matter whether I agree with it, it has a right to remain. (I would say that if it were totally opposite of my beliefs as well).
Do what you want with it, I am just posting my reasons.
--Falconus 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it again--I respectfully disagree that this contributes to a good biography article.  Please see What Wikipedia is not --> A Soapbox.  I would be happy to include it again if it were to become a more balanced information resource.  Thanks, GChriss 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be in their.  if it's pov, that's irrelevant.  it's a wiki.  if the site administrators have a bias, it's completely irrelevant, because it's a wiki.  really. Kevin Baastalk 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiThePresidency.org 

message: George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas. He is currently in his second term as president, which runs until January 20, 2009.  >>(change 'runs' to 'should run.')<<  --  Dude
:Go ahead and make changes to fix grammatical errors, and mark them as minor. ---Idiot with a gun 01:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Lead

message: In the first paragraph, it lists Bush's term as ending in 2009. I believe that elections are called every four years in the USA, making the end of his term 2008, not 2009.
:The presidency is officially turned over when the president-elect takes the oath of office; this has traditionally been done the third Monday of January, if I remember correctly. Thus, Bush's presidency runs until 2009 even though the election is in 2008. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2009 is correct, but it's noon on the 20th of January, regardless of which day of the week that happens to be.  (It used to be March 4th, but that changed with the 20th Amendment to the Constitution). --Easter Monkey 04:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and one last thing, the U.S. has no provisions to "call" for elections as is the case in most of the rest of the world.  Normally elections are held every two years, since the House terms are only two years and the Senate terms are six.  The Presidency is only up for grabs every four years — there are some exceptions but very few.  Election day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November regardless of what else might be going on.  Thus the only way to get a new President before his/her four year term is up is for the incumbent to die, quit, or be convicted by the Senate (not the same thing as impeached, btw.) --Easter Monkey 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just noticing

message: yeah why don't we talk about his aproval rating being 30%? -Dragong4
Because GEORGE DUBYA BUSH can DO NO WRONG, that's why!!! see the HYPOCRISY and MULTIPLE DOUBLE STANDARDS here?????  --ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIAN
:Hi, and welcome. This is a controversial topic which can lead to heated debate. If you are about ready to explode, please stop for a minute, take a deep breath, and relax your eyebrows. Repeat as necessary. Then, please fix your spelling and excessive use of capitals and punctuation. Thank you. --Rofl 04:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Owned.  Had to say it.--Exander 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because you want it to be an article that attacks everything about him, right? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aproval rating is an all time low 

message: According to this page
,
Feingold said Bush had ignored the constitution. This might be worth a mention in the article. It sounds notable to me.Eiler7 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need to mention censure 

message: in that article will state EVERYTTHING that bush has done wrong, or everything that has been controversial, eevrything that people like to critisise him on, etc.
:You may want to include this:
::COUNTRIES large and small are rejecting President Bush's foreign policy by intimidation, and are banding together to counter the US superpower.
: Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an article of opinions and partisanship, not the kind of article we are looking for. State what he did, and what happened. If you want to talk about popularity, find statistics. The term "wrong" is way too subjective. ---Idiot with a gun 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I saw we make an article in the article called "controversy" 

message: Seriously.  On an 800x600 display, you can't even see any of the article without first scrolling down.  The tags are disrupting the article and redundant.  Can two of the three be eliminated please?  I don't care which ones.  Readers need to be able to see the intro "above the fold" on the page load.  Kasreyn 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other two tags were added recently and were repetitively redundant and repetitious, so I removed them. Then I recalled Jimbo's suggestion and decided to be bold, moving the tag to the talk page.  has recently been reworded to accomodate for the placing on talk pages instead of the actual page itself, so I think this works out well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that was a pretty good move - I like it.  Can somone explain how this is done?  Is this just protecting the page via the admin tool and not placing the sprotect tag on the article? --Supercoop 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, protection is always and only done with an admin tool. The tag has nothing to do with it. And, yes, I also think the removal of that big distracting box from the article was a good move. Shanes 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many protect tags! 

message: Is it really necessary to have an article on George W. Bush, business and early political career?  Most of that info is already in this aritlce.  It should be merged, but I know how you guys are always fighting about this article and all, so I will leave it up to you guys.  Hopefully some bi-partisan decisionmaking can take place. --Midnighttonight 08:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. Robertsteadman 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why this would have to be a bi-partisan thing, seems to me like a simple issue of merging topics, not politics. I'm for it. ---Idiot with a gun 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly, it was a partisan thing that caused the duplication of content in the first place, with one side (i'm not saying which) claiming that not duplicating the content of the subpage was obvious proof of liberal bias, said user has been indef blocked along with a small sock pharm, so it shouldn't be an issue anymore--152.163.100.74 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. My vote is for merging the two articles, deleting excess fluff, you know the deal. ---Idiot with a gun 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George W. Bush, business and early political career]] 

message: Can anyone explain why George H. W. Bush's birthplace is included in the intro paragraph?  It breaks up the flow of the sentence and - due to the clumsy use of mere commas - could be interpreted to mean George, Junior was born in Mass., which is incorrect.  At the very least, the sentence needs to be reworded to avoid confusion.  If no one disagrees, I will move Bush, Senior's birthplace down to the Life before Presidency section where it belongs.  Kasreyn 23:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and remove it.  It's unnecessary in an article about GW Bush.  --ElKevbo 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Golbez beat me to it.  :)  Kasreyn 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace of Bush Senior in intro para? 

message: Cut from "Science" section:
:The U.S. Supreme Court had previously found a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism in public school science classes was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state. Edwards v. Aguillard .
I don't know what this has to do with anything. Has someone suggested that Intelligent design is a form of Creationism? If so, who? And is this that person's argument that teaching alternatives to the standard theory of evolution is something like indoctrinating schoolkids with a religious idea?
Please answer one or more of these questions, and find a better way to contextualize this quote. Pending that, I think I'll just add a link to Evolution-creation controversy. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to get involved in editing this article again, but I think it's obvious that ID is a form of creationism, and this has been recognized by the courts.  And, yes, teaching ID in science classes is akin to religious teaching; more importantly, it is non-scientific (as, again, the courts have agreed).  Take it to philosophy or theology classes.  As for the quote, I think a link to the Evolution/creation page is fine by way of explanation; I'm sure this is already discussed on the Intelligent design page too.--csloat 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: PS the most recent court case in the matter, according to the ID page, is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), which clearly found that ID violates the Establishment clause.--csloat 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, that's a truly bizarre thing to say, Ed.  Practically everyone opposed to ID has "suggested" - no, outright claimed - it is nothing more than creationism with a new name.  Or do you mean suggested on this talk page?  I'm puzzled.  Kasreyn 22:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm beginning to think you may not understand what science is, Ed.  It is patently unscientific to "begin" anything with an a priori premise - especially one which is an unfalsifiable, untestable hypothesis.  Science begins with doubt and observation, nothing more.  Falsifiability/testability is a critical component of a theory being accepted as being scientific.  ID fails this test entirely.  Therefore, whether ID is religious or not, it is certainly incorrect to refer to it as science.  Kasreyn 22:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, I feel it would be dishonest to portray this as a "clash between the nation's chief executive and a District Court judge".  Ridiculous!  As if there's no one else in the country but Judge Jones opposing ID.  This is, as far as I can tell, a clash between a great many ordinary citizens.  Bush merely takes the pro-ID side because that is one of the things his supporters chose him for.  It's not Bush's fight any more than it is my fight or your fight or Judge Jones's fight.  Kasreyn 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is important to have the paragraph about that court decision in the Bush article since it shows the disconnect between what Bush thinks and what the courts have decided. I.e. it shows either that Bush is not a "reasonable observer" as defined by Judge Jones, or that he is not aware of the constitutional questions. - Hayne 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Smacks of OR to me.  --ElKevbo 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel that this wording is better.  It speaks more clearly to the point of the debate:  not whether ID is "wrong", but whether it should be taught in schools.  Your version seems to concisely state the opposing viewpoints:  that ID is just another idea to be taught alongside others (on the pro- side), and that ID is merely creationism in new clothing which would violate the Separation Clause (on the anti- side).  Kasreyn 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Intelligent design]]

message: I deleted the statement " He also took a stand to retain the White House’s main 'Christmas Tree.'"  It had been tagged with a  tag for several weeks.  I myself have searched unsuccesfully for verification of this allegation.  If you add it back, please do so with a supporting reference in accordance with WP:LIVING.  --ElKevbo 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas tree 

message: I deleted the LA Times letter to the editor reference in the 2000 campaign section.  A letter to the editor is very poor reference in this context.  There are also two other references right next to it which are not only much better references but say the same thing.  --ElKevbo 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Times letter to the editor reference 

message: I deleted the two following statements from the Administration subsection:
* Critics allege that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes and that he has also surrounded himself with “yes men”.
*  Some commentators have claimed that deference to executive privilege was one of the principal considerations Bush’s administration considered when he proposed his three nominations for the Supreme Court, and appointed John R. Bolton to the United Nations.
Both statements have been tagged with  for several weeks.  They both begin with weasel words.  Most importantly, WP:LIVING clearly states that "editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons."  I'm not too happy about these deletions as I believe them both to be true but until we can find verifiable sources they clearly don't belong in the article.  --ElKevbo 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced allegations in Administration subsection 

message: The text below the ratings chat is way too long (on my monitor there is more text than there is chart).  I'd like to shorten the text in the chart to: "Bush approval rating from February 2001 to May 2006. Large increases in approval followed the September 11 attacks, and the beginning of the 2003 Iraq conflict."  This is similar or identical to what was previously there before it was recently (yesterday or today) expanded.  Discussion?  --ElKevbo 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. That chart is bad enough already. It's an original research chart, which means we ought to not even be using it. So at minimum, the source of the data must be mentioned. Also, the context about 2nd term ratings must be there. Neutral arbiter 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that using plotting existing data in a chart is necessarily original research any more than the infobox at the top of the article is original research.  In addition, you can view source information about the chart by clicking on it and thus my advocacy for removing some information from this already-crowded article.  I don't see the need for the 2nd term info as I believe that to be common information (indeed, common sense) for anyone who is actually interested in presidential polling numbers.  --ElKevbo 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with ElKevbo, especially since the information in the caption is already written into the article. The image complements what is already in the text, so a long caption is unnecessary. --Chaser (T) 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart summary text in Public perception, assessments & approval ratings section 

message: I suggest that the religion part of George Bush's article be removed since his religious beliefs should have no bearing on anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfa (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 May 2006
:I disagree.  A person's religious beliefs are definitely of interest in a biography.  --ElKevbo 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ElKevbo. As far as a Biography is concerned--especially a biography of a leader--it is extremely important. Where we cross the line is when we start making comments on what is right or not. ---Idiot with a gun 01:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is especially ridiculous for a politician who campaigned openly on his religious beliefs.  You surely can't be serious!! -Kasreyn 03:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion