Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 37

message: The Wikipedia article says that early in 2001 Bush obtained legislation to change the funding etc. of faith based charities.  This is not the case. The following is a quote from the New York Times, Dec 13, 2002: "President Bush acted today to make it easier for religious organizations to receive federal money for social welfare programs, invoking both executive powers and his belief in the power of faith to help society's neediest people."  Legislation was held up in the Senate, so he evoked executive powers. This seems like a clear mistake that should be corrected. If such legislation exists, it should be referenced.
 03:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith Based Error

message: Is it possible to get an updated graph for the approval ratings section.  The one shown seems to go only through Oct '05.  Thanks. Arkon 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph

message: For those who are concerned (or not) about this or any other article becoming permanently semi-protected, please peruse the insightful comments on Slashdot  and Digg some time.    These people are Wikipedia users (in the reading sense) and potential future editors as well.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside perspectives on semi-protection

message: Thanks for playing, but it doesn't take much brain power to see that you're a parody of a liberal, rather than the real thing--63.22.95.82 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strawman?

message: I have removed the ugly vandalism warning. Thanks to sprotect this page has been realatively quiet and this warning is not needed. I can see three days worth of edit history now.--God_of War 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly Warning

message: The article refers to a "record voter turnout" for the 2004 election. Not true: actually, it was the highest turnout since 1968. The article is also misleading---it gushes with fawning praise for Bush, saying that he got "more popular votes than any previous presidential" candidate---but it fails to mention that Bush received, in terms of absolute number of popular votes, a victory margin that was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Also, Bush's win was, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin ever for a sitting president. This info ought to be included in the article for balance.
:So include it then. CDThieme 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There should also be a blurb about the way the Electoral College system makes discussion about popular vote margins moot.  Endomion 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors in Article RE: 2004 Election

message: Did anyone see him lick his lips when looking down at Beyonce Knowles? Anyway did he get a mention for being at the KCH? --Jingofetts 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I and my family noticed this as well. He looked completely bored and uninterested in any of it until a young, attractive, scantily clad African-American performer came on stage. While it might seem unbecoming of a middle-aged president and looked down upon by his base, I agree with Justin: If he wants to be seen as someone who is attracted to Beyonce, there's no reason to stop him from conveying that image. I certainly am. WAvegetarian (talk)  (email)   (contribs) 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush at Kennedy Center Honours 

message: Ok, he's a Christian, and he's a writer, but is he a Christian Writer?  Harvestdancer 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Writer Category 

message: I reworked the intro a bit, could use a bit of work but maybe it's the right direction? I guess my problem is that it uses the "supporters" vs. "opponents" mantra, but in real life I think its a bit more complicated. Also, does anyone know who coined the bushism term? Maybe it would be best to use that rather then the generic "opponents". 
===Public perception and assessments===
Bush has been the subject of both popular praise and scathing criticism.  Some believe he has done well with the economy and homeland security, and shown exemplary leadership after the September 11 attacks.  However, some have disagreed on those very subjects and have also criticized the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the controversial 2000 election, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  
 
Due to Bush's colorful mistakes when speaking, opponents coined a new term, "bushism", to describe the grammatical configuration unique to Bush. Bushisms have been widely popularized and archived across the Internet due to their humorous nature.
WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Public perception and assessments" intro 

message: Bush has been the subject of both popular praise and scathing criticism.  Some believe he has done well with the economy and homeland security, and shown exemplary leadership after the September 11 attacks.  However, some have disagreed on those very subjects and have also criticized the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the controversial 2000 election, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  
 
Due to Bush's colorful mistakes when speaking, opponents coined a new term, "bushism", to describe the grammatical configuration unique to Bush. Bushisms have been widely popularized and archived across the Internet due to their humorous nature.
WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Public perception and assessments

message: I'm pretty sure the vandals won't go away in a week. They are on a 3 year cycle most likely.--God_of War 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw this as a big problem from the start. When there was discussion about regular protection being applied permanently on this article (by itself or with a separate ediable article), that should have been a sign that people would push for permanent semi-protection. Perhaps the devs did waste their time. Just my thoughts, though. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Beeing controversial is the streng of wikipedia. Protecting this article means loosing credibility. The end of wikipedia. And donations. Wikipoet 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not. Wikipedia is neutral and neutral doesn't equal controversial. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If you're referring to the reversions of your changes, semi-protection isn't even an issue.  You made them after it was re-established.  Your changes were removed because they violated our neutral point of view policy, which has survived quite a few donor drives. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I did not mean that because of removing of my changes. I do not care. It is just a danger for the profound mechanism of wikipedia. Wikipedia is the largest online cultural event because it is open and self organized. Like a big brain. Deleting a contribution for NPOV reason is part of this self organisation and I accept this with no problems. Discussions are also part of this big brain. But it is my opinion that protecting a controversial article like Bush, will put a censorship light on wikipedia. Imagine that this will be put on the newspaper: “Wikipedia protect contributions on Bush article: Alert! Censorship”. What will happen? Vandalism are something that wikipedia has to live with. Better vandals than a smell of censorship. Vandal you can correct. Smells not. Be careful with protecting this article. Regards, Wikipoet 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except we've gotten in a lot more trouble for having bad information in our articles than for protecting pages (which happens quite a bit). Tis better to be accurate than just allow anything in the articles. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear, finding the equilibrium between open content and accuracy is a hard job, but it is a ‘noble cause’ to serve the largest encyclopaedia ever written. Wikipoet 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SProtect

message: The existing page reads:
:In the 2004 election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. [...] This was the first time since 1988 that a President received a popular majority.
That should either read "first time since 1984", or more likely "since 1988 that a winning Presidential candidate received".  Not to be pedantic, but the sentence as is is at the least confusing ,and at first sight wrong -- as Bush the elder was not yet president when he was elected.
64.2.235.137 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Error/Confusion in 2004 Election discussion

message: Really? thjen why can't I edit this page?
::Because you're still too wet behind the ears.  Because this article was getting vandalized at the rate of almost once every few minutes, the article requires more hurdles to jump before you can edit it. Register for an account, make a few edits, then come back to this article. Also please sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I <B>am</b> a registered account, as valid as any other "editor" like yourself, this "semi locking" thing is a scam, you keep editing privillages a secret for your "elite" friends 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you feel that way. All you have to do is contribute to a few other articles, then you're free to edit this one. It's regrettable, but necessary to prevent the extremely persistent and damaging vandalism that was happening to this article on an almost minute-to-minute basis. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, you are as valid as everyone else. As are the anonymous IPs. It's somewhat similar to the feature for enforcing username changes. Your IP gets banned along with your username- its a side effect of enforcing a name change that administrators can't stop. Regrettably, you can't edit this article. I'm sure you will be able to soon. :-) Deskana (talk page) 08:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the encylcopedia <I>ANYone</i> can edit??

message: *Don't you think George is looking tired?
**This is highly irrelevant to this section and, unless you are referring to a specific image of Bush in the article, an innapropriate topic in it's own right as talk pages are specifically not for general discussion of article subject (see WP:TP#Usage). WAvegetarian (talk)  (email)   (contribs) 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to proper place, although it isn't a new topic, look up just a couple sections. WAvegetarian (talk)  (email)   (contribs) 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Republic Wages War on Wikipedia :O 

message: Why is the photograph of El Presidente removed, and why is his infobox incomplete? For such a high-profile page, it's embarrassing that we're missing such things. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image and infobox 

message: I'm going to spend a few hours later today in an attempt to cut this article down to the recommended article size without losing any information. I'm going to create (more) subpages and the like and leave only a sentance or two about most subcategories. In accordance with WP:BOLD, don't be shocked when you see it - I'm not going to delete one word.--CastAStone 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my support. Dave (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would appriciate it if someone else - preferably someone apolitical - would cut down the election 2000 information to be of approximately the same length as the election 2004 info. --CastAStone 04:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly?  I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think that that's possible.  Just as an article on World War II is necessarily going to be longer than one on the Spanish-American War, some elections merit longer articles than others.  Now, I'll be the first to say that what is in there now is excessive by many degrees.  But there is no way that an election that followed the sequence of events that we had in 2000 is going to be compacted to the same length as 2004.  It's just not realistic. Unschool 04:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was just within the Bush article should be cut because there is already a link to the 2000 election main article. I can give it a shot but I'm, quite frankly, afraid of a lashing.--CastAStone 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarification.  And, incidentally, I share your trepidation. Unschool 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  By the way, what you are doing is great.  Wish I had the time for such major projects. Unschool 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've knocked 28kb off so far, without deleting anything. --CastAStone 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! I've been a strong advocate of Summary style for some time as well. --mav 05:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's my version.  Let me know what you think.  Dave (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give it a huge thumbs up. --CastAStone 07:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'll do it later if no one objects.  Just to clarify an edit summary, , when I deleted "In July of 2002, Bush cut off U.S. 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 said I'd put it in another section.  I couldn't find a place to put it, but it's in the foreign policy section.  Cheers, Dave (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: down from 105 to 65, i'll keep plugging away, thanks for the help Dave.--CastAStone 09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 59kb, its getting harder, i'll take suggestions. --CastAStone 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preferred Article Size

message: Unprotect it please, the guy isn't in the news now! --Brian Daniels 12:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Stating when his term will expire in its own sentence in the introduction of this article appears pointless and biased.  Keep it even, Centrism - Centrism people. --anon
:I'm a Bush lover but I added the information because I don't like articles with ticking time bombs inside them that will render them out of date when they are overtaken by events (such as the election of the Giuliani/Rice ticket in 2008).  Endomion 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as a bias at all. It's not at all uncommon for encyclopedia and almanac entries about serving politicans to list the scheduled end of their terms right up front. In fact, I'm surprised this isn't part of the WP:MOS. --Aaron 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you mean Jerry Rice. --kizzle 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon comment

message: I see that there were huge changes made to this article and a tremendous amount of information was almost unilaterally moved elsewhere and put in daughter articles. Shouldn't more discussion have occurred during this as I see about 3 or 4 editors took the time to chime in. Since this is a bio page, why are bio items such as his professional life prior to becoming President still in here, when we already had pages that had much of his Presidency elsewhere? Now, to be frank, the article details points that are less biographical and more peripheral to him.--MONGO 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think CastAStone did a good job of explaining himself above, and, as the article had been tagged for excessive length for some time, what he is doing is appropriate. Unschool 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The artricle is more a series of links than an article. Much of importance has been deemphasized by placing things of material value elsewhere, off the main page. I have no problem with shortening the article or putting less important issues in daughter articles, I do have a problem with removing items that should be here to other articles where it will be less likely to be linked to. Many of these daughter articles end up rarely being edited so new information supporting or refutting the info there is never edited in. I think it is reasonable to assume that an article of this person, and of this position is going to end up naturally being one of the longest articles in Wikipedia.--MONGO 21:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree with your concerns about daughter articles, I am trying to integrate the information lazily put into the main article into the appropriate daughter articles as a part of this project. The article, even as is at 59kb, is barely loadable or editable over a phone modem, a slow computer, or when wikipedia is slow (which is seemingly 60% of the time). This is I imagine the most viewed article on Wikipedia but the idea is that the main article for any topic MUST be a micropedia article with links to the information that would be included in the macropedia version. See Wikipedia:Summary_style. I have not finished cutting out information yet, so the article may seem lopsided right now, i'm getting to foreign policy and another user (see above discussion) is workin on the election 200 information. Every section needed to be cut down to make it of appropriate size, remember that it was not too long ago that pages cut off automatically at 32kb, I'm not delusional and i know it will never be that short, but it was almost 4 times the recommended legnth.--CastAStone 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several users have said that they support the changes.  If you think specific important things are missing, you can add them back, but I think we should all be able to agree that 104 Kb or whatever it was is too much.  Dave (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is long, naturally. He is the current President of the U.S. and there has been a lot of controversy in his prresidency. Most featured articles are the size of this one now, and most of them cover areas that are in no way nearly as diverse as this one. I am fully aware of article size and am fully familiar with Wikipedia:Summary_style but encourage you to be patient with your changes. I have never seen either of you do much editing here in this article until the last couple of days, so just remember that the article you are editing has been the work of hundreds of other editors, many of whom may still be on vacation, so I would prefer you not make any more radical changes until some others have had a chance to chime in. Three or four editos in agreement with these changes does not a concensus make, especially in this article.--MONGO 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's fine, I'll wait a few days to see what transpires.--CastAStone 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable.  CastAStone, you may want to write up your reasoning in case other editors aren't as understanding as MONGO.  MONGO, I'm impressed with your tone and ability to assume good faith.  Keep it up! :-) Dave (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I wrote Summary style and think that the article at its current size (~45KB of readable prose) is about right, if not a wee bit smaller than it should be. Then again, we have to leave room for the rest of his life. :) --mav 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cable modem but even so this page was always one of the slowest to load, so I can understand the concerns if anyone is on dial up. In all liklihood, there probably won't be too many editors that will be worried about splitting this article up and I do see that nothing was lost. I suppose I am playing more of a devil's advocate in this case. I didn't revert any changes but just wanted to toss in my 2 cents worth, for what it's worth.--MONGO 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're just going to have to be very careful in what we leave as a summary. --kizzle 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You stated in one sentence what I tried to do in four paragraphs. This article has oftentimes been one of the biggest battlegrounds in Wikipedia, so it's going to hard to make a comment and not allow the quid pro quo countercomment to also be there.--MONGO 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deemphasis 

message: Do we need the long "See also" section? It's mostly just repeating links to daughter articles already pointed to in various sections in the main article. I think the shortening of this article has been very well done, but the article now has proportionally too many lists and tables for my taste at the end. Any objections against removing the "See also" section, or at least all the links already mentioned further up? Shanes 01:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, but don't take out too much.  Dave (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to wait a few days, though, per MONGO's request in the section above. Dave (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "See also" section 

message: I don't like the way this article reads now.  Parts of it seem dry and  uninformative.  I especially don't appreciate that it was shortened during a time when only registered users can contribute.  That seems sneaky.  Gilliamjf 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was four times the acceptable legnth. see above discussion, and don't make new talk sections without reading the old discussions first. All of the information that was previously there is still linked to in subarticles. --CastAStone 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions 

message: I added a rather cumbersome sentence about Bush's common nickname, "W" (now frequently rendered as "Dubya"), which I was surprised to see missing from this substantial article. However, I couldn't readily find a reliable source for this information. Does anyone have such a source? Also, I added the line to the short intro paragraph about his family because (A) the name started with them, I believe, so it was a semi-decent segue; (B) it should be somewhere in the intro as an alternate name per Wikipedia article title standards; and (C) it didn't seem significant enough to make a section out of it, and didn't seem to fit into the existing ones. But I'm not too crazy about its wording or position myself. Feel free to rework it to suit both verifiability and better prose. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I didn't find any mention on the White House website except in a jesting biography of Spot, the First Dog. I've got several books on reserve at the library to check this out, if someone doesn't beat me to it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tip, but we need more. The Daily Mirror is reputable, but a headline doesn't really provide any origin or explanation for the nickname. (After all, they could have just made it up themselves, as the press occasionally does.) I was disappointed about the absence from the White House website, because it wasn't initially used meanly. (And Spot calls him "Dubya", eh?) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sifted through several books on Dubya and the Bush family, but couldn't find any mention of the origin of the nickname in them. (Specifically, I studied the TOC and indices, then speed-read many promisiing passages for sources, but found nothing. I really couldn't bring myself to fully read the books, as the subject matter doesn't interest me that much.) Unless I come across better information in my general information hunts, I'm afraid I'll have to leave sourcing on this point to others. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  W, Dubya nicknames 

message: The article about George Bush is extremely biased.  For example, the part taling about AIDS only points out the positive stances of his government.  Although the US contributes largely to this cause, as the world's richest nation, it has a duty to do so; in fact it gives much LESS than it should, and has been critized for its poverty stances, and overall international aid.  A little more should be added about the Patriot Act and the power gained by his government after 9/11.
:That is your opinion. --Golbez 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something definitely ought to be added regarding the wire-tapping allegations and whatnot that have been swirling for the past couple of months.  Not necessarily the issue of whether or not it constitutes a violation of civil rights or the Bill of Rights, just the specifics of what's being done in the name of curbing 'terror.' 12.37.144.130 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Bias 

message: The following passage (from the election 2004 section) is correct but incomplete and a bit misleading, since it only refers to the sitting Presidents who have won re-election and not to the sitting Presidents who have lost.  A slight modification is in order. . .   
"Bush's victory margin, in terms of absolute number of popular votes, was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Also, Bush's win was, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin ever for a sitting president." Joey1898 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No lame conspiracy theories please. --Golbez 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: that information is in the macroarticles linked to in the election 2004 section of the article. This article is biographical, and there is no evidence that Bush himself led this "rigging", as even if Karl Rove did rig the election, the man is way too smart to let Bush catch wind of it - the less the president knows, the better - plausable deniability. If Bush had no idea, Bush fires Rove, problem goes away. If Bush knows, problem never goes away. ergo, Rove or any RNC flunkie, if he did "rig" the election, would not let Bush in on it, hence it does not belong in the biography of Bush. But anyone who wants to read more about election 2004 could click that link and be presented with the theory. Anyways, it would take thousands of people to rig a presidential election to the tune of a 3% difference - do you really think all those people could really keep quiet? --CastAStone 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margin of Victory in 2004 

message: I feel as though Bush's stance on torture should be worked into this article. Thoughts? Sludge 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush's stance on torture

message: Is that paragraph really needed? I mean George W. Bush's family and advisors are considered important to him in his life and career. and His wife Laura and his mother Barbara Bush are also considered important to his life. just sounds silly. The following can be inserted somewhere else in the article: His most trusted advisors have included many women, such as Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, and Harriet Miers. Karl Rove has played perhaps the greatest influence on Bush's life and career. MartinHagberg 14:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His mother, father and wife have played important roles in his life?  Imagine that!  You mean he's a human being like the rest of us?  Do we really need this information to understand the man?12.37.144.130 16:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, though this is important: His most trusted advisors have included many women, such as Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, and Harriet Miers. Karl Rove has played perhaps the greatest influence on Bush's life and career. MartinHagberg 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important people in Bush's life and career 

message: Apeitheo, I know your edits were probably correct by standard English, but the style on Wikipedia is to put punctuation after quotation marks when the punctuation isn't part of the quote.  This guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks.  I think you were definitely right about the quotes in the "he changed my life" sentence, though, so I kept those.  --Allen 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  punctuation in Wikipedia 

message: Davidpatrick, why does it matter that we don't know Bush's favorite philosopher before 1985?  --Allen 06:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why his favourite philosopher before 1985 is encyclopedic. That should be something under trivia or somewhere else. --Terence Ong Talk 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we knew who it was, it might be encyclopedic.  That we don't know who it was isn't.  If we knew for sure that he didn't have one, that might be encyclopedic.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding philosophers, when did Christ become one?  In fact, for a substancial part of the populous that maintains that the Bible is mythology rather than history, what evidence is there that Christ even existed outside the realms of fiction or fantasy?  By this logic, I guess Santa Claus is my favorite philosopher.  He taught me that it's more important to give than to receive and he loves and helps children.  Regardless, why is this information relevent?12.37.144.130 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus, no matter how you look at it, can be considered a philosopher (even if you disregard the status of God thing). Secondly, many notable critical historians agree that Jesus, no matter who he was, existed. Third, seeing that Santa Claus existed in reality as St. Nicholas, your logic would be slightly skewed. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! 4 semi-notable christian biblical scholars agree Jesus existed! How unexpected, now wikipedia can be justified in treating christian mythology as fact, after all, four whole Jews for Jesus agree with the 'historical' jesus thing, it must be real!--205.188.116.10 06:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's favorite philosopher before 1985?