Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 35

message: Personally, I don't like George W. Bush. I'm not an American, I like freedom (I'm not "commie scum"a as someone colorfuly described it.) But, whatever issues, sarcastic comments etc we have, we shouldn't bring them in here. Would Oxford dictionary put "George W. Bush - American President - Common idiot" in its dictionarys? No they wouldn't. Why should we do it here? Maybe we should have a 
completely seperate Wikipedia (Like the one for BattleStar galactica) for things like this. If I ever get a webserver I will set up something like that for such discussions.
NightOwl91 10:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh..... 

message: When and why did we get rid of the last part of the intro describing his family? Marskell 10:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: The debate over what to do with this article is somewhat similar to the the one over the controversial decision to permanently protect the Main Page to deal with the high levels of vanadalism to that page. It's somewhat interesting to go back through the page history and see that the "unmanageable" level of vandalism that was then being debated was an attack once every couple days. - SimonP 20:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there's an unmanageable level of vandalism here. Every time a vandal "strikes" a group of people immediately revert; do you know how many times I've tried to revert, but someone else has beat me to it? I mean if this page is locked, then were will it end? After all, Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopaedia". Reverting vandalism is the price we have to pay if we want Wikipedia to retain that title. Izehar 20:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we must deal with some bad things in order to keep our favorite encyclopedia free and open, but I really don't think vandalism is one of them, except on a small level. There is no reason why we should have to constantly revert this page, and if we can impliment a better solution, we won't have to. Would you mind considering the options posed in the threads above? P.S. This page is still too long, and no one is axing it! (I would, but I'm not too sure how to go about doing this). Thanks and good luck, Mysekurity 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: no, the level of vandalism is quite manageable. I just feel bad for the database :\ the edit history becomes almost unreadable. Maybe we should have pruning bots that silently remove edits that were immediately reverted from the edit history. Regarding vandalism, sneaky changes to little-watched articles are a much more serious problem. No vandalism to this article goes unnoticed, but I've found months-old vandalism in less prominent articles before. dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical comparisson

message: What a laugh.  Mandela and chavez!  any other bush haters you want to quote?  How bout Castro?  North Korean dictator Kim?  Or perhaps the famous bin laden.  That would be a nice conclusion to this excellent fair and balanced wikipedia article.--Capsela 22:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda reminds me of the Oscar Wilde quotes on Unencyclopedia. -Mysekurity 00:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why quote sections are usually POV. This article is too long already, I support removing the quotes. They're out of context and obviously cherrypicked from among Bush's most notable critics. Rhobite 06:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Or else we should try to find some quotes that show international opinion of a favorable view of Bush...and that aint going to be easy. I'm sure the opinions of folks like Chavez or Mandela are likely to be biased. But with an approval rate of almost zero internationally, it is doubtful any leader outside the U.S. is going to upset his/her constituants with any prose about Bush. But everyone already knew that so I'm just chiming in.--MONGO 08:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it's easy to cherrypick quotes of international leaders who think Bush is a moron, because there's whole orchards to choose from. You are free to try the opposite, but you won't be cherrypicking so much as hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. Maybe known Mafiosi like Berlusconi or Aznar, yeah that'll make GWB look better. Maybe the Uzbek chief of intelligence, too. And I think even Berlusconi is not as chummy with Bush as he used to be (of course, now that it looks like Bush is sinking, Berlusconi has no reason to stick around with him) dab (ᛏ) 15:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: on second thoughts, Chavez isn't exactly a beacon of integrity himself, so that Chavez dissing Bush needn't be a negative experience for Bush, at least not as much as being dissed by Nelson Mandela himself ;) dab (ᛏ) 15:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Tony Blair maybe? He has supported Bush's foreign policy although he has still been critical of other conservative aspects of Bush's administration. Rhobite 16:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Good riddance. Trying to keep a selected selection of quotes NPOV is impossible. Besides, we already have a link to Wikiquote for that sort of things. Shanes 04:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hint: use Wikiquote instead of an external link. This produces Wikiquote. -Mysekurity 04:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Didn't know or had forgot that syntax. Shanes 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  famous personalites??? lol  

message: I'm sorry, but this page needs to be protected considering that this page was vandalized 100 times today, it despritely needs protection.
--Karrmann
: Yeah, but there are probably 100 admins looking at every edit done to this page, and that's without counting the Counter Vandalism Unit. I'm starting to think that there should be some sort of semi-protection status, but not full protection. Titoxd(?!?) 00:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be protected. 

message: Edit here  states that bush spoke at Bob Jones University and attempts to connect with the later statement in the edit that doing so somehow means he is anti-Catholic...does anyone have anymore substantive proof of this other than this editors opinion?--MONGO 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so - even if it is though, there cannot be many sources about the subject. Izehar 20:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to think that BUsh may very well be anti-Catholic in his relious views, but that doesn't mean I think that he has a problem with Catholics as people...regardless, it would be nice if a source for this type of thing could be found...I've looked and turned up nothing except opinion  and then this one which states that Bush isn't against Catholics  and here brother Jeb defends Georgie after he went to Bob Jones (as if that isn't a biased source!) and then Bush defends himself here ...so indeed there were some questions to be answered about his visit to Bob Jones University, but I see nothing except the same innuendo he was defending himself from 5 years ago trying to be passed off as encyclopedic.--MONGO 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if there is evidence he is anti catholic, there is little reason to mention that here as that in itself is controversial and easily disputed. To mention it sounds quite POV to me as well. CowmanTalk 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think if it were true, everyone would know about it already (liberal media would have jumped on the bandwagon). I'll take it out now. Titoxd(?!?) 21:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have evidence that Bob Jones University also forbids interracial dating.  How POV was it in the first place for Bush to offer a speech there?  I believe it may be worth mentioning. Gilliamjf 00:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. It is an introductory-level article on Bush, not Bush-bashing. If there is mainstream media criticism of the speech, and it can be sourced, then it goes back in. Otherwise, it's out, not just according to WP:NPOV, but to WP:V. Titoxd(?!?) 06:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was criticism of Bush for this incident, but it was based on the university's racism, not its anti-Catholicism.  I believe one critic pointed out that, if Jeb Bush and his Hispanic wife had met each other as students at Bob Jones University, they wouldn't have been allowed to date. JamesMLane 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we have proof of Bush being anti-Catholic? 

message: I realize that the relevant conversation has now been archived to archive 34, but I honestly wish not to see this proposal die down. The vandalism at this article is too great to just sit back and watch it, and I feel that semi-protection would be the best option. I am unsure of what needs to be done in order to establish semi-protection, but I wish to make it available as soon as is humanly possible. But the more important question is in regards to peoples' feelings about protecting/semi-protecting said article. What do you, as an editor, feel? Thoughts, please. -Mysekurity 03:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say bring it back, that was an active ongoing discussion. --kizzle 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JanesMLane already dragged it out of the archives once I think...maybe we need to take it over to the Village Pump and never shut up about it till something is done.--MONGO 04:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with all three of you. Titoxd(?!?) 05:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: (After edit conflict) That was me who brought it out (I was editing the page, then Voice of All archived it, I got an edit conflict warning, and moved it back. I agree about the Village Pump thing, as I've heard (never actually been there), that things can be easily forgotten/passed over, and so I really hope this isn't one of them. If we know what language this should be programmed in, I can send a note to everyone in Category:Wikipedian programmers/try to contact the devs, but I don't know how well this cold-calling will work. I really think this needs to be implimented and "never shut up about it"; otherwise, we'll all get screwed. Oh, I think I'm going to file a Bugzilla reqest. Thanks, Mysekurity 05:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "never shut up" seems the strategy--cold-call away, I say. There's a thread open on Jimbo's talk. Perhaps he'll rouse himself to comment if a dozen people show up and note agree. Marskell 05:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Bugzilla requests are probably not the best idea, since there are dozens of feature requests that are currently on the back burner. I suggest asking someone farther up for her opinion until there is some substantial discussion about this. Titoxd(?!?) 05:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with both above. I was just filling out the Bug report, when I saw this, and I had been feeling similar thoughts as yourself. As for cold calling, whom should I "call"? What language will this be written in? And what to do about rousing the editors to leave a note on Jimbo's page and demand semi-protection? Where should I/we go to get more people interested, and have Jimbo himself declare a national state of emergency? -Mysekurity 05:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Two suggestions: Copy and paste the discussion ongoing on Jimbo's page to each of the high level wikipedia people (wasn't there just an election of some sort?  try those people who just got elected)... second, maybe create a Wikipedia:Combating_extreme_vandalism project page and invite as many users as you can. --kizzle 20:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: {In Latinoamerica is common the expression "Bush go home!" in the hundreds of manifestations that happened when he went there.} It's TRUE, even thought you don't want to believe it. Thousands have died because of Bush's administration, we don't say "thank you, Mr. Bush". It will be like saying "thank you Führer Hitler for the Holocaust".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.187.201 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 November 2005
{I have an idea. Stop bringing bloody politics into these discussions and keep it OBJECTIVE. Bush isn't recieved well by all, point. No American president is loved by the world, because the "primary" power is disliked. 
Comparing the Holocaust to the Iraq War is LAUGHABLE. George Washington lost more soldiers in Valley Forge (not even combat) then we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Compare this "war" to any other war in US History, and this is a minor engagement. Compare it to the Holocaust and you will see the same thing. 
Of course there will be individuals in nations who dislike Bush. Thats part of a hate of US; we'e the main military power, as stated. People dislike that, to be honest. Though www.theotheriraq.com is worth mentioning...}
--Zorak 08:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin American viewpoint

message: C'mon guys, give it up. I wonder how many people saw that This man is an evil man and some say he is a vampire and burst into uncontrollable waves of laughter like I did? Are you liberals really that desperate that you have to stoop so low as to do that? Funny, funny, funny. Roygene 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, some are. Please don't forget, however, that a similar situation has been going on at Kanye West, which we've dealt with here. Wikipedia is nice because its good editors are able to cross partisan lines for the purposes of building a better encyclopedia. -Mysekurity 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Vampire? 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Publishing policy states that we cannot edit the page unless we want it to get published again. Since he's still in office, this doesn't make too much sense. Maybe after he dies in 25-50 years. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  i am not sure i follow you. the article can always always always be editable forever. publishing involves making a copy of one particular version in time, frozen, subject to approval, to announce to the world "this is a reliable piece of information and i recommend this to you but not our editable development version that we are working at the moment". yes, they can get out of date quickly, so you are suppose to republish as you should. -- Zondor 05:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: I boldly put a poll on Jimbo's talk page :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotect poll 

message: I tagged the Death Penalty section with a NPOV tag as I find the word choices to be overemphasizing and misleading. The section as it is now:
*George W. Bush is a fierce supporter of the death penalty. As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush was responsibe (through the signing of death warrants and the refusal of clemency) for the deaths of 152 people. As President of the United States he has continued in his fervent and active support for capital punishment, including presiding over the first federal execution in decades, that of Timothy McVeigh. For this reason, he is viewed as a particularly evil person by many opponents of capital punishment.
"fierce supporter", "fervent and active support", "he is viewed as a particularily evil person" are all POV, unreferenced and unencyclopedic.--MONGO 11:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that, thank you.--MONGO 11:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV-section: Death Penalty 

message: There's some guy with a lot of IP's available having his fun with penises at this page, and with Jimbo's number. Thus, it's vprotected, though this should be undone quite soon. Just get this guy to wander off (plus this is such a visible page its not one where I particularly want Jimbo's homephone number). Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what the protection option is for. Immediate problems that cannot be solved by other means. -Splashtalk 02:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But how many times must we do this in order to keep it from being vandalized? I completely see your point in allowing new users to edit this article, but I think the number of vandalisms this article faces by newcomers is far too great. How many times do we have to protect this page? I want non-admins to be able to edit this too, which is the point of having semi-protection. I'm sorry we're having this disagreement, but I think that we should try to keep Wikipedia as clean as possible and retain our already valued editors. This is not to say that we should not actively recruit new users, we just need a little more of a buffer on pages like George W. Bush. We have 800,000 articles: If a new user can't edit a dozen of them, do you honestly think they're going to be turned off forever? People outside the project don't care that much if you can't edit a few pages, but they care when they see an image of Hitler when they're looking for information on George W. Bush. -Mysekurity 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newbies cannot edit the Main Page anyways, and that doesn't stop them from joining Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vprotected, but temporarily of course 

message: There really should be comments on this page about how Bush has used a false understanding of terrorism to endorse a national aggression.  Terrorism is not a nation, rather it functions like an organization.  To fight it with massive military action will only cause more distruction.  How much more obvious does Bush need to be that he is filling us with lies and using terrorism as a ploy?
:Thank you for your opinion. If you can provide specific sourced examples of Bush using terrorism as a ploy, or using a false understanding of terrorism, we would be happy to include it in the article. However, I find it unlikely that you will be able to find actual proof of these things. I do wish you luck in your endeavors though. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean, unlikely? How about pretty much anything he said over the past four years? It's not like they are trying to hide what they are doing, they just shrug off criticism as long as they can get away with it. The problem is not that there is no proof, the problem is that his electorate is beyond giving a damn, so it doesn't matter if there are proofs. dab (ᛏ) 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I ask for specific sourced examples of said activity. How do you prove that what he is doing is using terrorism as a ploy? How do you know that that's not what he and his administration really thinks? I am trying to be NPOV here. If there are specific sourced examples of him deliberately using a false understanding as a ploy, please provide them. But since, I am going to assume, you cannot read Bush's, or his administraion's, mind, you cannot prove it. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: agree with LV, it is unlikely that you can find sourced examples. NPOV!!!!!--Alhutch 21:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Except he's not just comparing the three. If you read the quote, he clearly states that, "We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before..." He isn't comparing them, he is simply showing that he thinks freedom can conquer evil. Any evil. It doesn't matter what evil it is. And he isn't even comparing Fascism and Communism in general. He is comparing the Nazis in Germany and their agressiveness to the agressivness and evil of terrorists. He is not saying the three are the same, rather they can all be defeated through freedom. Whether or not this is true is not your point. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See note above. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Eternal questions, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tired 

message: My edit, 16:43, 30 November 2005 Lord Voldemort m (revert vandalism)  definitely did not show up as I had made it. Perhaps a few things got messed up too (look at the history). Any idea what happened? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there now. Maybe it's a problem with your browser?--Sean|Black 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that the vandalism I reverted now shows that I put it there... see? I am confused. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's odd. Maybe you have dissociative identity disorder? :).--Sean|Black 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ethan, don't worry, you just beat him to the revert, and he reverted to an old version. We'll fix that. You're not in trouble. That said, you should really create an account! Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 05:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, LV, your revert came at just the wrong moment, (but said vandalism had been there long before you made that edit). BD2412 T 05:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflicts sometimes screw up things. I did one a while back on this page, got an edit conflict message, then saw in the page history that I was credited for reverting TO the vandalized form.  Pollinator 05:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to go on record saying that it was a WP, not operator error. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did something get messed up? 

message: Please look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and vote. It would directly affect this article directly. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a question... How many times is this going to get linked here? --LV (Dark Mark) 14:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More than once. -Splashtalk 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As many as it takes to get you guys to come discuss the proposal so we don't have to spend so much time complaining about vandalism on this page. --kizzle 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Why is this page protected AGAIN??  Some of us would actualyl like to make some changes here.
:Because other users haven't been able to play nice. and keep this page from vandalism for even the shortest period of time. If you check the page history, you can see the ratio of productive to unproductive edits—it's not good. Until then, you may post sugguestions to this talk page, or wait until the vandalism passes before adding the information. Sorry for the inconvenience, Mysekurity 06:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~)
I'll unprotect. If you reprotect, at least use . The alternative to protecting is rolling back and blocking vandals, of course. Just slap vandals to this article with 24h blocks without warning, they know what they are doing. dab (ᛏ) 11:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected again?

message: I've tried to make a number of actual edits to this page (especially the Immigration section -- which specifically asks for more information) only to have them be seemingly reverted without even being read. The reason Vandalism is such a problem is because everyone wants it to be, IMO.
:Ahem. Do the math and then tell us that we don't have a real problem. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a poor excuse for blindly reverting good edits, if that was done. -Splashtalk 16:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wasn't me. I read what the editor put in before reverting. However, it's possible that this did in fact happen. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I figured it wasn't. I commented just because we had another anon complain of the same treatment yesterday on John Seigentheld Sr. (however it's spelt), and it's very poor form of whoever did do the revert. -Splashtalk 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-sustaining problem?

message: Since yesterday was AIDS Awareness Day, I thought it would be good to add a section to foreign policy regarding his HIV/AIDS program.  Here it is.  If someone wants to add it, great!
:====HIV/AIDS====
:In the State of the Union message in January, 2003, Bush outlined a five-year strategy for global emergency AIDS relief.  Bush requested $15 billion for this effort and Congress supported the president's proposal.  The emergency relief effort is led by U.S. Ambassador Randall L. Tobias, the Global AIDS Coordinator at the Department of State. $9 billion is allocated for new programs in AIDS relief for 15 countries most affected by HIV/AIDS.  Another $5 billion will go to continuing support of AIDS relief in 100 countries where the U.S. already has bilateral programs established.  And $1 billion will go to support The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This budget represents more money contributed to fight AIDS globally than all other donor countries combined.RonCram 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. I'll add that in. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, this is part of Bush's foreign policy, not domestic policy. Ambassador Tobias works for the Department of State and all of the money is spent overseas.RonCram 15:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my bad. Fixing now. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No problem.  Thanks for adding it! RonCram 15:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing. It's too bad that we have to watch over this article so closely, but when you see how much this page is vandalized... Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted to add new section 

message: I would like people's comments on whether his partnership with Salem bin Laden in Arbusto Energy should be mentioned in the article. I think if it's true, there's no reason to leave it out.--Alhutch 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Brian for expanding that portion of the article.  I strongly agree that we should disclose all the investors in the interest of completeness, but disagreed that making mention of Salem bin Laden in this section was even remotely "sneaky", although it did need some rephrasing for accuracy.  Hall Monitor 18:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is supposed to be an effort to write an encyclopedia, not post every bloggish innuendo that comes along. The bin Laden family is huge and they were big contractors in Saudi Arabia and had their hands in lots of cookie jars all over the mid east and the U.S. Therefore, the brother of my enemy is my enemy? Since when?--MONGO 13:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salem bin Laden 

message: User:Gallian, under a number of identities, has been using the Bush article to post edit summaries accusing named individuals of among other things child sex abuse. He now has created an identity and resumed the quest. In the past because of his behaviour using IPs he was instantly banned when he did so, and requests had to be made to have the offending comment deleted from the records of the page (a torturous process). Given his history of this behaviour and the defamatory nature of some of the claims, I have imposed an indefinite ban on him. He no doubt will return using IPs or a new identity and try to continue. If he does, I'd advise you ban IPs the moment he does it. If he uses an account, post an indefinite ban and put in the sockpuppet proven command linking back to the Gallian account. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abusive edit summaries

message: "The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever."
from:  1
I think this would be a useful addition in the article, to cover the early formation of the historic place of the Bush presidency, but I'm not going to add it without checking it here first. Trilemma 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds iffy. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public (and academic) perception of George Bush's place in history 

message: The statement:
:It is worth noting that, during his time as Texas Governor, more juvenile offenders were executed than in any other jurisdiction in the world (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=203); this clearly only applies to official, openly state sanctioned executions, and not to extra-judicial executions which may happen elsewhere.
Is this in fact the case, and is it easily verifiable using the link provided?  The website referenced merely talks about reported executions: are there nations where the death penalty is still in place and for which there is no information on the number of juvenile executions?  If so the statement is unverifiable. -- Francs2000  16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are countries with the death penalty that do not have verifiable records of numbers, ages, sexes, etc. (Think certain Middle Eastern countries.) --LV (Dark Mark) 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the statement from the article then.  I did this twice last night because the anon who added it was not providing me with enough evidence that the statement was fact, but was reverted both times.  That's why I brought it up here. -- Francs2000  17:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Executions

message: I'm sick and tired a million times over of this crap happening over and over again. Pictures of penises tiling across the page should not happen on this page or any page. There needs to be a new criteria for banning vandals. This is just disgusting, and I've had enough. Protect this page permanently--heck, only allow admins to edit it. I really don't care. I've had enough.
On an unrelated thought... is there any way that we could prevent anons or users with less than, say, 100 edits from linking to pictures (that weren't already linked to)? It seems like that's the real problem. Nobody's offended (really) by the word "penis" getting randomly inserted into sentences, but a picture of a penis in an inappropriate place--now, that's offensive. It would seem like that might solve the problems. Just throwing that out. Matt Yeager 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:AN/I#Permanent protection of George W. Bush (spoiler: the answer is no), and also see Wikipedia:Semi-protection. -Splashtalk 00:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we protect it without ruining the layout, though? JHMM13 (T | C) 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Somebody protected it, so I threw a vprotect on it. They should get bored eventually. By the way guys, we get it: you don't like Bush. Let us run our encyclopedia already. – ClockworkSoul 07:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was only move-protected, so I took off the . It's confusing, we never know when it is fully protected instead of move-protected... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 07:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why wouldn't anyone want to vandalize an article on Cheese? Matt Yeager 23:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because hopefully that person has more of a life than to go around mucking with an article on Cheese.  I can partially understand people's persitence on vandalizing articles that are related to anything about the USA, like Bush, Democracy, United States, etc... but there are just some really bored teenagers out there if their only source of fun is to mess up an article about cheese.  Go outside, play in the snow or something, talk with PEOPLE!!!  --LifeStar 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Alas, the Wikipedia concept is NOT "internet democracy"--it is to build an encyclopedia. []. Matt Yeager 23:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we just protect this thing? 

message: I believe that "supplementing" should be changed to "supplanting" the following sentence:
:76% of Iranian adults believe that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is supplementing in Iran emerging as a free democracy.
— goethean ॐ 18:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind...my mistake. — goethean ॐ 18:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, the sentence still doesn't make any grammatical sense.  What is it trying to say, anyway?  Rogue 9 19:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammatical change to be made after unprotection 

message: Eh, what's the point of having __NOEDITSECTION__ turned on for this article? android79 16:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It believe it is aimed at stopping vandalism. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also a pain for non-vandals. It makes good edits take longer to do and dramatically increases the chance of edit conflicts. CalJW 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See #NOEDITSECTION Seems to work. -Splashtalk 18:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Presumably this is so that everyone editing the article sees the warning tag comment at the top. I wish we could make it so that only anonymous users had to edit this way and registered users could edit by section. Firebug 23:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Tony shouldn't have removed the notice. It can go back in, if you like.-Splashtalk 13:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to get into a revert war with Tony. Add in both or leave them both out. Having NOEDITSECTION turned on for no reason is silly. android79 13:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki> ??? 

message: The article is way to big, it needs to be separated. See Wikipedia:How to break up a page Mike92591 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but blanking sections of the article isn't the way to go about it.--Sean|Black 22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not as though information was lossed. I linked it to another article.Mike92591 22:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs to be shortened 

message: A revised proposal for an  function has been made.  This is especially relevant to the George W. Bush article, please see Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy#Semi-protection_proposal_v.02 for details.  Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is someone keeping count of how many times this gets listed here? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: count = \lim_{x \to \infty}x. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection proposal v.02

message: Why was George W. Bush moved to George W. Bush/Development? Firebug 23:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was an accident? Ashibaka ON WHEELS!!!! 23:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nope it was done by User:MarkSweep who wrote "experimental vandalism protection; bear with me". He should have discussed it before doing it...*scans topics above*... Broken S 23:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This definitely should have been discussed beforehand!--Alhutch 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope he is not doing what I did...as we already know(and I have learned) that forks are evil.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm all for being bold, but this was taking it too far.--Alhutch 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: I tried this exact same idea before(with much less errors though)...the community has a consensus against it. Look at the recent archives of this talk page and you find it. With this being added, pages being moved, and vandalsim mixed in...I protected the article for now so we can sort this out. Someone unprotect in a few minutes(if I don't).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I have your attention, I am unprotecting it...please read my above comments.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It did have a notice, with a pointer to the editable version. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the "tag" related portions of this talk page..Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Vandal fork removed 

message: Why was the page protected again without first discussing the issues on the talk page? Firebug 09:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I added this new template {{ Template:GeorgeWBush which produces:
Please do not remove it, it is a vandalism template warning. --Everton Toffees Fan 11:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a dire one. Reverted. The Land 11:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case anyone's confused, that user was blocked for persistent vandalism, and the template redlinked above was an act of vandalism. The Land 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems more like trolling to me. Izehar (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I don't know whether this anonymous contribution merits reversion; it was reverted after all. Izehar (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.godulike.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1073&view=previous&sid=271196ad18d427696ec75c329ad78aab Susvolans ⇔ 14:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Those are probably all well-covered in Bushism, which is linked from this article. This article certainly doesn't need a long list of malapropisms. android79 14:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being bewildered 

message: I removed the notice.  Don't tell people not to stick beans up their nose.  There was also some nonsense about blocking vandals immediately.  I hope I don't catch anyone blocking first-time vandals without warning. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your rationale for removing this notice, but I think that it is a bad idea. Apparently, the notice actually did reduce vandalism, which is very important, especially on an article this prominent. How do you think it affects the reputation of Wikipedia if someone loads the George W. Bush article and is deluged with photos of penises? And we both know this has happened incessantly. As for the blocking policy, anonymous users fooling around (blanking articles, adding a string of nonsense, etc.) should be given a warning or two, but blatant vandals should be blocked immediately, and for 48 hours. If blocking policy requires that everyone be given all four warnings before being cut off, then blocking policy is flawed and should be changed. Crotalus horridus 15:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that blocking is a remedy not a punishment. 24 hours is usually plenty, if not too much. -Splashtalk 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying we should have absolute zero tolerance. If a new user blanks the article or inserts a phrase like "can I really do this?" then gently point him toward the sandbox.  works fine here. But if User:Pelican shit on wheels! comes in and immediately replaces the article with a page full of penises, then an immediate block is called for. These things should be judgment calls. And a stern warning may have some deterrent effect. Crotalus horridus 16:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The notice came back so I deleted it again

message: RE:          Given the amount of time this article is both vandalised and protected, I wanted to draw attention to a discussion taking place at Talk:Alan Dershowitz right now.  Hall Monitor 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing open to administrators-only

message: Can't the page be protected until the libel vandal gets bored and walks away? Izehar (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: suggest we protect.--Alhutch 00:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, protection is vital! No reader must see the vandalised versions. We'd look silly. Izehar (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets protect for one hour--File Éireann 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: is there an administrator in the house to do so? the vandalism continues.--Alhutch 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, my other comment should really be here.  But yes, I agree.  He seems to do this every two days or so.  I'd say that for now on, once we notice it the first time, we get someone to protect. Deckiller 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I second that. It's just disgusting, but part of the history really needs to be deleted. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I'm not surprised that Willy lied about leaving Wikipedia.  Hmm...it could also be an imposter or friend...Deckiller 01:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Amen! I'd be fnie with this page being protected for 24 hours. 
xaosflux T/C 01:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What about the WoW template?  Should that one remain in use? Deckiller 01:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The fact about Lebanon in the last paragraph of this article is all wrong. First, there's no sources or references for this "facts". Second, I'm a regular follower of Lebanese news and these demonstrations were never Pro-Bush, the name was never raised during these events. I'll wait for someone to add sources soon before removing it. CG 09:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon 

message: I'd like to see a mention of the fact that Bush has referred to the United States Constitution as "just a god damned piece of paper". 1 Pacian 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnamed source, in an OP-ED, hardly notable or reliable. Arkon 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pressure has been put on the Republicans and Bush for "cutting holes" in the Constitution for the Patriot Act and other infringement of civil liberties. Our forefathers meant to make the Constitution a secular document, which was revolutionary at that time. Every public document preceding, including the Declaration of Independence, mentioned God. If Bush did say that, it was probably part of his agenda.  Gilliamjf 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituion a "piece of paper" 

message: If the article is protected, it needs a banner to explain to readers why. TacoDeposit 19:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it looks like Woohookitty removed the banner but not the protection.--Alhutch 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's protected from moves, but you should still be able to edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected banner 

message: This article is some 95kb in size; requiring editors to load the whole thing into their browser just to do the odd edit is extremely unproductive, so I've removed the "noeditsection" directive.  This was in my opinion an abuse of that directive as it can only hamper good faith attempts to improve the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed a little bit above, several users commented that it actually was working to calm the vandalism, so I've placed it back. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not remove the NOEDITSECTION from the George W. Bush article until a developer enables semi-protection.  For whatever strange reason, it has helped to reduce the amount of vandalism this article receives.  Hall Monitor 00:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "noeditsection" directive

message: thumb|right|300px|We don't want visitors to see this.
Ok, folks, if you are going to delete the article to take out the defamatory diffs, please make sure you at least undelete the top revision. Ideally, you don't need to even delete the article, all you have to do is take note of the diff numbers of the offending revisions, and then, go to IRC and ask a dev to take them out of the database, if they agree. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Sean|Black 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When in doubt, don't delete 

message: Pretty fast and impressive....I'd say seven accounts in 2-3 minutes.  I sockpuppeted all of them, but I don't have ban rights, so I stopped defbanning.  It's becoming an art just to stop him. Deckiller 03:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willy's last outburst 

message: Please restore all but approximately 64 (the offensive summaries & their reversions) of this Article's original edits - people need to know the evolution of this article. --TML1988 03:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please restore bulk of historical edits...