Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 38

message: Looking at the reduction in vandalism recently, it feels quite promising.  I'm testing removal of semi-protection because it's looking so good--this should be tried regularly anyway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this; it's time to remove it and see what happens. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear. -Splashtalk 16:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also support this, it has been seme-protected for too long. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding to the pile-on; let's see what happens.  You never know when someone anon or new might actually improve the article.  Antandrus  (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just about to shatter the happiness and do it before you did...thanks :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record: the world did not end for having this page unprotected for a few hours. -Splashtalk 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is ridiculous, obviously an article like this will get a lot of vandalism. I know this has already been discussed, but leaving an article unprotected for not even 12 hours and then re-protecting is not, IMO, how the WP:SEMI is meant to work. If this is intended to be semi'd for the long term, can we at least remove the notice at the top? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How WP:SEMI is supposed to work is in response to serious vandalism irrelevant of how long it hasn't been applied.  After GWB was un-semi'd, it got vandalized pretty heavily right afterwards, thus semi-protection was then justified again. --kizzle 02:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't semi-protection (and full protection, except for the main page) supposed to be a temporary solution? Obviously this will receive a lot of vandalism, semi-protection here will never be temporary. This is akin to protecting the Featured Article, something we very rarely do. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We MUST test the water, agreed. But if vandalism rushes in, then we protect again and test the water later. It is policy to protect against heavy vandalism. I don't like protecting either, and I unprotect Japanese media and used a /23 or "9x255 user" block so that more people can edit(every other IP). Anway, this is the best we can do. And don't forget that the Louis Braille aricle assured some readers by having a protection tag.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it should be a gentlemen's rule to un-semi at least once a week. --kizzle 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say maybe a bit more often, perhaps SP for 24 hours, relax it to see what happens, and if vandalism spikes, SP again. A few hours a week doesn't seem to contibute to the "anyone can edit" mentality. Just my opinion though. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed semi-protection

message: This category was recently added to the article, which I feel is inappropriate. Wasn't there some kind of debate regarding these categories before, which resulted in the deletion of several of the actual categories? In any case, I don't think this category should be in this article, because the subject is not considered or widely accepted as a drinker know. If we wanted to, we could easily slap this category across half (or more) of our celebrities; surely all of them have had a drink? But unless they are widely viewed as "famous" for drinking, then the category shouldn't be here. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. It's POV nonsense. android79 18:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the category because the category states, "The following articles concern people that have all been noted for their love of Alcoholic beverages and their participation in a wider 'Drinking culture'." From the information in the "Substance abuse controversy" section and George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article, Bush clearly meets these criteria. User:Flcelloguy argues, "the subject is not considered or widely accepted as a drinker know [sic]". Surely the fact that Bush, ostensibly the single most powerful person in the world, is actively a teetotaller as a result of a previous drinking problem verging on alcoholism, is notable? I'm not defending the category itself, but, if drinking was apparently a large enough part of Bush's life to warrant a separate article, he is clearly a suitable subject for inclusion. The fact that he was arrested because of actions perpretrated while drunk - that drinking adversely shaped his life, leaving him with a criminal record, unusual in a president - is further reason for inclusion. McPhail 18:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except drinking is not a part of his life, it was used as ammo to bash the President during the election nothing more. PPGMD 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The category includes Ernest Hemingway and Janis Joplin, and they are not famous for drinking either. Bush isn't famous for winning a "Worst Actor Razzie" or for being born in the year 1946, why not remove those categories too? Arguing, "X is not famous for Y, so should not be included in Category Y" is a superficial tactic that could be used to the point of absurdity to preclude the addition of virtually any byt the most germane categories. If the category exists in it current form, Bush should be included. If he cannot be included for the reasons you provide, the category is essentially redundant, as very few people become encyclopedia topics purely on the basis of their alcoholic intake. McPhail 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case the category should be deleted. In my opinion, including Bush in category (in its current state) is not right. Bush is not famous for drinking. Surely if he is a famous drinker most people would know him for drinking. They don't. And you can't argue that Bush should be included if other people in similar circumstances are included wrongly; for example, if I added Bush to the category Fictional Bats, does that mean that since the current president is included all previous presidents must be too? Deskana (talk page) 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I don't feel that the analogy to the  "Worst Actor Razzie" is valid - that's a fact, while Bush being a famous drinker is an opinion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a fact with a criminal record and his own admission to prove it. He is both famous and a drinker; he is a famous drinker. Whether or not he's sober at this point in his life is irrelevant.--24.190.122.122 10:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: User:195.153.219.170, check out Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Let's not call each other ignorant or any other names, eh? --Mr. Billion 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if Deskana took offence, but I'm afraid not being aware of Bush's battle with the bottle is "ignorance" of that information. If I'd called him an eejit, I'd perhaps understand your haste in pointing me to wikipedia guidelines. And perhaps if you have any further comments to make about my conduct here, you'd put them on my talk page. I'm pretty certain that's the correct way of going about it. 195.153.219.170 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to irk you, but calling someone ignorant is understandably likely to cause offense.  Deskana hasn't registered any offense, though, so it's no big deal.  I just want good relations among Wikipedia users.  Cheers!  --Mr. Billion 20:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on, almost all famous people have had a drink or been drunk.  Heck, almost all adults had been drunk.  Should we put every person of the modern culture in this catagory?  And perhaps a better name would be "Famous people who died from drinking" or something shorter.  I dont believe that if you ask someone what the President is famous for, they would say drinking.  It is POV.  Thank you for listening.  American Patriot 1776 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is a pertinent point. After all, I get more looks being an adult and NOT drinking than if I did. Perhaps we should put a list together of famous non-drinkers? I agree this doesn't belong here. I believe that Famous Drinkers would imply that the person was a well-known drinker, not someone who had drank prior to becoming well known. DavidBailey 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Famous drinkers 

message: Why no separate article on the irregularities in the florida count, or at least an in-depth examination of the debacle? This article merely serves to highlight the fundamental problem with wikipedia - that as long as there is conflicting opinion there can be NO CONSENSUS, no matter how well-established the point that the majority are trying to make. The Bush loyalists throw their toys out of the pram every time someone makes a considered criticism of the most hated US president of modern times. For that matter, take a look at the discussion of the argument below about oil being the primary reason for the invasion... Whilst the point may not have been made particularly well, it is labelled a "conspiracy theory" and dropped. Be fair - it's something many people, at least outside the US, consider a possibility. Certainly it doesnt deserve to be so crudely dispatched. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.153.219.170 (talk • contribs) .
:I don't believe a detailed analysis of the florida count (I'm assuming you're talking about 2000) belongs in an article about George W. Bush.  We already have an article on the 2000 Election along with the Florida recount. --kizzle 20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  florida 

message: By reading this article, I can only conclude Bush is a drug abuser and draft dodger prior to 2000.  Funny ... most of this allegations are just pure speculation and I have yet to see conspiracy theories on Bill Clinton be put on the front of his article.  Furthermore, there is NO information about Bush's governorship or his other public service in the prior to 2000 section.  This is a major factual error in authorship and this article is nowhere near being neutral currently.  BlueGoose 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the fine dance of trying to be NPOV and not offending anybody. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Both can be fixed without the rewrite you are calling for. A rewrite is asking to throw away the existing text and start again. That's far too drastic. Which part of the article do you consider 'speculation' and 'conspiracy theory'? DJ Clayworth 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want more content to be added, please add it yourself, or provide citations so that others can.  Sam Korn 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Although they are relevant to the 2004 election, they took place before 2000. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 'cleanup' is used for much more serious things than this. We already have the 'neutrality and factual accuracy' dispute, which I think covers the article nicely. DJ Clayworth 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluegoose, I understand your argument that the page isn't yet neutral, but I don't understand your argument that the page contains factual errors.  I can see why getting such a controversial article completely neutral might be a challenge, but I feel like we should be able to come to a rough agreement on the facts.  --Allen 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My factual accuracy concern actually encompasses concerns on the material omission of facts (namely no information on Bush's governorship or any of his other political positions/candidacies) whilst spending quite a bit of space on discussing various speculative theories and claiming/implying via the header this is represenative of Bush "prior to 2000".  BlueGoose 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Disputed and Cleanup Tag Placed 

message: Nobody has refered to George W. Bush tendency to speak in slogans that people like but that have no substance?--tequendamia 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a phrasing would be POV, and without sources, it would be just your opinion. Besides, slogans without substance is a recurring theme in nearly all of politics, not just GWB's administration. android79 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a phrasing would be POV if it wasn't true.  It is and sources should be easy to come up with.  And just because all NFL quaterbacks throw touchdowns, it doesn't mean that Peyton Manning isn't exceptional.  The same goes for W's slogans (or propoganda if you want to call a spade a spade.)Arcarsenal 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking in slogans 

message: Why no mention of the 2004 exit poll / result gap? It's the same evidence that the UN used to invalidate the Ukrainian results. I would say that evidence of electoral tampering deserves at least a little mention.
: I was unaware of this matter.  Could you provide perhaps a link or source for these claims, I would be very interested.  Thanks in advance! American Patriot 1776 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered in several articles, including 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. Also, elections don't have margins of error. The term "margin of error" refers specifically to uncertainty caused by a small sample set. Rhobite 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 Election Controversy 

message: I don't like the big dominating tag we use at the moment, template:sprotect. 
Readers who come to this article are now distracted to first learn 2 things completely unrelated to the subject they came to read about: 
# This article has recently been vandalized
# They can't edit it, unless so and so.
Do most readers really care? Why do we use the most prominent place in the article to tell people this? They just want to read about GWB.
So i prefer the much less distracting template:Sprotected-small. We write wikipedia for the readers. Those who care about editing it (a very small minority, we have to realize that) will catch that the small note means it's sprotected. The big screaming box is not needed.
The big box is good for one thing, IMO, it makes us want to remove it by unprotecting it. Which is good. The article should never be permanently protected. But we probably have to face the fact that this article will be in a state of sprotection for long periods. In other articles where sprotection is more of an exception, the big box is more acceptable for this reason. But here I'd really like us to tone down the protection notice and don't distract the readers so much. What do others think? We've had a few reverts back and forth over this in the article already, but the best is to reach a consensus here. Shanes 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reduced the font from 9 to 8. I was one of the "2 lines max" fanatics, making sure that the template had small font and took up only two lines. It seems ok now, and is much better than the full protection template.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Shanes you are spot on. Absolutely. Please change that. Please. This article is the most viewed. That is so much more appropriate. I'm serious.--CastAStone|(talk) 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree, a big template letting users know that they can't edit this article is awkward, most users just want to read about GBW. I know the -small template was on a one point, and I very much liked it. I've restored it. Please voice your disagreement here before reverting the change. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, it is minimalist. We don't need a big glaring template. And please stop chaning it, you are clearly in the minority. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sprotected tag 

message: I would suggest that his membership in the Category:Christian_Leaders be reconsidered. It is true that he is a leader; it is also true that he is a Christian. But a quick look at :Category:Christian leaders shows this category represents people who are leaders of Christian movements or serve in an official leadership position of an official Christian group/orgranization/denomination/etc. (Similar exception might also be taken with the category membership of Alan Keyes.) I would propose that he be moved to a category for Christian politicians. Cgb8176 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership in [[:Category:Christian leaders]] 

message: Is it really the best idea to have his signature here?  I highly doubt it.
:Exactly what I was thinking. But I think they put it on public online documents to make it 'official' although any idiot could copy the image. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it keeps on getting added here - it really should be culled IMHO WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how his signature adds to the information about him. I'm going to be bold and remove it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm - I'm not sure what happened, but my edit seemed to do a lot of other stuff I didn't do. (All I did was remove the signature image.) Sorry for any confusion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. Oh, I see what happened now - I must have checked the history to see who added the signature image, and then clicked "edit" from there, accidentally adding/removing/changed some stuff. Sorry 'bout that - my only intent was to remove the signature image. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why include his picture? In what way is his picture encyclopedic? Whatever the answer is, why can't that be used for his signature as well. PAR 03:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to respond so late. I gave an answer at Template_talk:Infobox_President. Basically, they are covered by other copyright tags like PD-GOV and PD-OLD, and maybe PD-FAIRUSE of some flavor. In particular the Bush signature was downloaded from a .gov site, so I'm sure its ok. Does anyone object if I put the signature back in? PAR 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature

message: This article fails to make clear that this phony "controversy" is nothing but a malicious and baseless attack on President Bush from the Left.  The unsubstantiated allegations about Bush skipping service, etc. are made to sound legitimate, which they are not.
This article must mention the disgraced leftist journalists Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' failed attempt to smear Bush's reputation in September 2004 (less than 2 months before the election) using proven forgeries purporting to be official National Guard records.  CBS News has officially and unambiguously disavowed all claims to those documents' authenticity.  Bush-hating leftist contributors might wish they were real, but this does not make it so.
I note that Wikipedia has locked the public out from fixing this ridiculous article.  Why?  To perpetuate your anti-Bush propaganda without further complication?
Unless this article is changed by its owners to make clear that this wrongly labeled "controversy" has never been proven to be anything other than a false and baseless attack against the president, then Wikipedia is engaging in leftist propaganda of its own and has damaged its credibility.
-ATS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.1.133 (talk • contribs) 23:45, January 14, 2006  (UTC)
:Wikipedia have plenty of right wing editors who have edited this article. If you would like to edit this article, which was protected due to anonomyous vandalism, sometimes at the rate of 3 vandals per minute, make an account and make a few edits to other articles first. Then you will automatically be granted access to protected articles. To be clear: this article was protected so that those who hate Bush - the LEFT wing - could not defame him here. Anyhoo, if you can factually prove your claims about Bush not showing up for duty as propaganda, do so on this talk page. Please support your case using reputable sources (i.e. not The Weekly Standard or The National Review). CastAStone|(talk) 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phony and Malicious "Controversy" over President Bush's National Guard Service

message: To the unregistered people who have concerns about the controversies about George W. Bush, your concerns are important to the registered members editing this article.  However, bear in mind these controversies were moved to the elections section from the Bush prior to 2000 section to make the context of said controversies more fair and balanced.  (If you see earlier I had tagged these articles for this exact controversy and nobody objected to my moving of these sections and adding a stub tag to the Bush prior to 2000 section).
In my humble opinion, the fact that these controversies are in the elections section now put the controversies in context by implying they were allegations leveled by the oppostion to Bush (it is an election after all).
BlueGoose 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A call for calm (on both sides)

message: Keep the vandals out, and the editors in, obviously the second the protection goes away, the vandalism comes back..--Piedras grandes 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote for continued Semi-protection(Straw Poll):
===Support===
# Support It's better this way, legit users can edit, vandals cannot--Piedras grandes 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually "yelling" on a comment pertains to a exclamation mark, caps letters, and/or bold lettering. I don't recall using any of the above in my statement. Please stop these fasle allegations regarding my behavior. Futhurmore, no, I'm not saying they haven't, but its much less common, and its a lot easier to take disiplinary action agaist registered users. I also don't expect vandalism to desist completetely ethier. But semi -protect has been working splendidly so far - let's us edit, and the vandalism is fairly low. Whereas with it disabled, there's no advantage at all. Just substantially more vandalism, and more pointless reverting. And I'd like clarification from you on what editors who (as you put it) "like to revert". We revert because its necessary, not because of "formallity" and just because people have it on thier watchlist. -ZeroTalk 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, vandalism is decreased, but at the sake of the wiki ideals of letting anyone edit. We already stopped creation of articles from anons, now you are trying to stop anons from ever editing certain articles (and basically back-handedly saying anons are not good editors). The decrease in vandalism (something that wasn't totally destroying Wikipedia as it was) should not be used to justify subverting policy, consensus, and the nature of a wiki. And my humblest apologies for using the word "yelling", perhaps I should have said, "trying to reprimand". Thanks for nitpicking the language I use, I am always happy to clarify my remarks to those whom don't understand what I was trying to say. Regarding the "liking to revert thing", I'll try to explain to the best of my ability. This is a voluntary project that anyone can (or was supposed to be able to) edit. It is a wiki. People edit here at Wikipedia because they like to, not because they are being made to. Reverting, technically, isn't necessary. It is a voluntary activity that some people do, because they feel that by doing it, they are making WP a better place. Vandalism will never cease (logged-in users even vandalise sometimes, by your account) unless fully locked from everyone. You are right in calling this ridiculous (I am not seriously advocating this, if you couldn't tell). People add this article to their watchlist because they want to keep an eye on this article, and revert if they feel so inclined. Being a voluntary task, no one is keeping anyone here. If you are just so sick and tired of reverting... just don't do it. But I guarantee someone behind you actually believes in the wiki principles and in building an encyclopedia. I like upholding the wiki, reverting where I feel needs it is just part of it. So having answered that, I have a question for you, and I would like a direct answer this time. What is your main concern with removing SEMI every couple of days? --LV (Dark Mark) 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again. I've already confirmed to you that I deeply respect anon editors and I am not trying to subvert concensus or policy (Besides, it isn't that hard to make an account). And I thought the ultimate goal of this being a wiki, was so we could gather differing people and vast knowledge bases to ultimately make a expansive and comprehensive encyclopedia constructed on solid thesis and scholarly analysis. I love the ideal of "with people editting here because they like to", but if that is true across the board, then vandals vandalize here "because they like to", which is unacceptable. The programmers and developers have given us a new tool to wage war on these hooligans; I think we should put it to good use. And even then, I am only endorsing its full use on this one article, as it is clearly an exception. As for your main question, Its simple: There's no point to it. What's the point of formallity when we know what's going to happen..? Indeed, What's the point when these vandals only seek to sicken and pervert our fair encyclopedia..? Leaving SEMI off isn't fair to the editors, and makes them work more than they have to; essentially a slap in the face. You say it unwiki to not allow anons and such to create articles and not bypass SEMI. No, its wrong to allow anons to create articles and not give them the recongnition they deserve so they will continue, and its wrong to let people vandalize the encyclopedia for the sole reason of "everyone can edit". That is un-wiki. -ZeroTalk 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is saying that anons cannot ever edit this article again. You seem to have a very short term definition of "ever". Once G.W. Bush fades into history this article will become much less likely to be a target of vandals. I don't see anything wrong with having heavily vandalized articles subject to constant "semi-protection". If this means that anons cannot edit certain articles during the time period that they remain so present in the general public view as to attract vandals, then so be it. - Hayne 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't WT:SEMI... Ta/wangi 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's obviously better this way

message: # Support It's better this way, legit users can edit, vandals cannot--Piedras grandes 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose Sure this article gets a lot of vandalism, but so does the featured article, and we don't protect that. Having this semi'd for a long period of time seems un-wiki like to me. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #This is going to be semi-protected for the vast majority of the time until 2009. But I have no objection to periodically unprotecting and reprotecting, even if it's a mere formality. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: #Having said that I think semi-protection should be kept for now. Vandalism is way down and non-vandalism contributions are not that seriously affected.  Semi-protection must be lifted fairly regularly for monitoring purposes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[m:Polls are evil]]

message: #Being a wiki, reverting vandalism is totally voluntary. No one is forcing you to do it. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually "yelling" on a comment pertains to a exclamation mark, caps letters, and/or bold lettering. I don't recall using any of the above in my statement. Please stop these fasle allegations regarding my behavior. Futhurmore, no, I'm not saying they haven't, but its much less common, and its a lot easier to take disiplinary action agaist registered users. I also don't expect vandalism to desist completetely ethier. But semi -protect has been working splendidly so far - let's us edit, and the vandalism is fairly low. Whereas with it disabled, there's no advantage at all. Just substantially more vandalism, and more pointless reverting. And I'd like clarification from you on what editors who (as you put it) "like to revert". We revert because its necessary, not because of "formallity" and just because people have it on thier watchlist. -ZeroTalk 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, vandalism is decreased, but at the sake of the wiki ideals of letting anyone edit. We already stopped creation of articles from anons, now you are trying to stop anons from ever editing certain articles (and basically back-handedly saying anons are not good editors). The decrease in vandalism (something that wasn't totally destroying Wikipedia as it was) should not be used to justify subverting policy, consensus, and the nature of a wiki. And my humblest apologies for using the word "yelling", perhaps I should have said, "trying to reprimand". Thanks for nitpicking the language I use, I am always happy to clarify my remarks to those whom don't understand what I was trying to say. Regarding the "liking to revert thing", I'll try to explain to the best of my ability. This is a voluntary project that anyone can (or was supposed to be able to) edit. It is a wiki. People edit here at Wikipedia because they like to, not because they are being made to. Reverting, technically, isn't necessary. It is a voluntary activity that some people do, because they feel that by doing it, they are making WP a better place. Vandalism will never cease (logged-in users even vandalise sometimes, by your account) unless fully locked from everyone. You are right in calling this ridiculous (I am not seriously advocating this, if you couldn't tell). People add this article to their watchlist because they want to keep an eye on this article, and revert if they feel so inclined. Being a voluntary task, no one is keeping anyone here. If you are just so sick and tired of reverting... just don't do it. But I guarantee someone behind you actually believes in the wiki principles and in building an encyclopedia. I like upholding the wiki, reverting where I feel needs it is just part of it. So having answered that, I have a question for you, and I would like a direct answer this time. What is your main concern with removing SEMI every couple of days? --LV (Dark Mark) 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again. I've already confirmed to you that I deeply respect anon editors and I am not trying to subvert concensus or policy (Besides, it isn't that hard to make an account). And I thought the ultimate goal of this being a wiki, was so we could gather differing people and vast knowledge bases to ultimately make a expansive and comprehensive encyclopedia constructed on solid thesis and scholarly analysis. I love the ideal of "with people editting here because they like to", but if that is true across the board, then vandals vandalize here "because they like to", which is unacceptable. The programmers and developers have given us a new tool to wage war on these hooligans; I think we should put it to good use. And even then, I am only endorsing its full use on this one article, as it is clearly an exception. As for your main question, Its simple: There's no point to it. What's the point of formallity when we know what's going to happen..? Indeed, What's the point when these vandals only seek to sicken and pervert our fair encyclopedia..? Leaving SEMI off isn't fair to the editors, and makes them work more than they have to; essentially a slap in the face. You say it unwiki to not allow anons and such to create articles and not bypass SEMI. No, its wrong to allow anons to create articles and not give them the recongnition they deserve so they will continue, and its wrong to let people vandalize the encyclopedia for the sole reason of "everyone can edit". That is un-wiki. -ZeroTalk 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is saying that anons cannot ever edit this article again. You seem to have a very short term definition of "ever". Once G.W. Bush fades into history this article will become much less likely to be a target of vandals. I don't see anything wrong with having heavily vandalized articles subject to constant "semi-protection". If this means that anons cannot edit certain articles during the time period that they remain so present in the general public view as to attract vandals, then so be it. - Hayne 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If you don't like reverting vandalism, don't include this page on your watchlist

message: We do have a policy of semi-protecting pages that are under heavy vandalism, and I think semi-protection has been immensely successful in this case (see vandalism reverts by week).  Although of course new editors will continue to be drawn to this article I'm not unduly worried by the current background level of vandalism, down to just over one vandalism incident per hour during the last period of unprotection, which corresponded to the US peak evening period.  I'll probably choose a period when most Americans are asleep for the next test, and I'd be interested to see how much vandalism we get then.
To give an idea of what the state of play is, vandalism levels peaked during the first week of December, at around 2 instances of vandalism per hour.  I'd like to see the background vandalism rate at about 1 instance every 3-5 hours or below before I'd consider lifting semi-protection.  That was the vandalism rate of this article during the first half of last year, during which vandalism was not considered to be a serious problem by the editors at the time--while protected from page moves, the article was only fully protected on rare occasions during that period.
I do resent the suggestion that these experiments are just some kind of personal indulgence for which I expect others to pick up the tab.  It is essential to semiprotection that it only be applied when necessary, so we must monitor this article to see if vandalism rates fall.  We are already picking up valid edits by non-logged-in users during these periods when the page protection is lifted, from which we can say that semiprotection does come at a price to the encyclopedia.
It has been suggested that a reason for not lifting semiprotection for short periods is that during those periods there is a chance that someone may read a vandalised version of the page.  This is a fact of life with a wiki, and not in itself a valid reason for protecting an article.  The purpose of using a wiki is to produce an encyclopedia and if you cannot edit a page this is not possible.  Visitors are made aware that this is a work in progress and they should not be too surprised if the work is less than perfect at the time they view it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection will continue to be monitored

message: #Your concensus is noted Mr. Sidaway. However, I think SEMI guidelines should be changed. --Zero|Talk 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't WT:SEMI... Ta/wangi 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Polling guidelines]]

message: Abramoff Was A Republican Insider And Who Had Strong Pull With Bush White House. Abramoff's lobbying partner boasted that he is a phone call away from the President. "Jack has a relationship with the President," Abramoff's former spokesman and fellow lobbyist Michael Scanlon once said. "He doesn't have a bat phone or anything, but if he wanted an appointment, he would have one." Scanlon has since pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials. (New Times Broward-Palm Beach, 2/22/01; Washington Post, 11/29/05)
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58947
:And this means...? Bush also has ties to Cindy Sheehan, even had a meeting with her! Does this mean that Bush and Sheehan are best buddies and she influences him? It appears Abramoff met with a lot of people. Adding this from the DNC would hardly be considered NPOV in my book. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did sheehan brag about being able to have a meeting with the president whenever she wants?  No.  All this attention that has been focused on here recently is about here committed efforts to get a meeting with him, which she has not been able to get.  Very bad analogy. Kevin baas 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, normally I do anagrams, not analogies. I just think this concerted effort to push anti-Bush POV into articles (not just this one) leads people to see Wikipedia as a joke. WP needs to remain NPOV, and adding something like, "Bush is best friends with Abramoff, and is really corrupt", even intimating that Bush was bribed, does not quite lend itself to being so. Abramoff could, and seemingly did, "meet" with politicians of both parties, so adding something like that is just a little dishonest. That's all I meant. My b, yo. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? You mean there are actually places other than free republic that think that wikipedia is some sort of vast left wing conspiracy? Oh well, luckily you people all trol- gravitate towards one article, so it's easier to keep an eye on you--152.163.100.9 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, one, the only time I have ever been to Free Republic was after Zoe (I think) said they were frepping (sp? Sending goons to regulate us.) us at AN/I a couple of days ago. Two, I'm definitely not a troll. Go through my contribs. Hate to disappoint you. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abramoff and Bush 

message: Granddad George Walker, for whom GW Bush is named, had a plantation called
"Duncannon" visited often by GW Bush and his daddy Poppy Bush (GHW Bush41).
Duncannon Plantation is located in Barnwell County, South Carolina.
See Duncannon Plantation - Barnwell County, South Carolina SC
President Bush, Sr. with his brother used to visit his grandfather Walker's
Duncannon plantation and he and his family spent many Christmases there. ...
south-carolina-plantations.com/barnwell/duncannon.html 
See also Cromwell selling the Irish as slaves to sugar plantations after devastating Ireland esp from port of Duncannon for which this plantation 
is named.  
Doyle Clan - Cromwell Devastates Ireland "I do not think that thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives," Cromwell later wrote. The survivors were sold as slaves to the sugar plantations ...
www.doyle.com.au/cromwell.htm 
20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Plantation 

message: I'm surprised that the longstanding (since 2002—going on four years!) program of wiretapping American citizens hasn't been mentioned in the article. Considering that a Zogby Poll shows that a majority of Americans think that it might be an impeachable offense, does it not merit a mention in the article?--RattBoy 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the public perception / polls section, but I don't think that poll is in there yet.  It should be.  Also, it might be worht considering moving that section elsewhere (upwards on the page), because it isn't so much about public perception as it is about the actions and policies of the president. Kevin baas 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiretaps and FISA 

message: The page when opened for edit shows a vandal warning. I am not a new user or a vandal. It was done by    a non admin. How was it done and why if anyone has any info? Thanks.--Dakota ~ ε 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism warning in comments appears at the top of the article. To edit, you can scroll past it or use section editing. Everyone sees that warning, but I'll reword it now to make it less confusing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Want to correct a miss spelled word. Thanks again.--Dakota ~ ε 02:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't edit [[George W. Bush]]

message: Nice little breakdown of who edits this page:  — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-18 03:55
I hope people don't consider this inappropriate to post here, but seeing as this is a high-traffic page and poeple here have probably had a lot of experience with disputes, I thought people might be interested in an Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll that just started.    This is just a FYI. Kevin baas 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heh

message: Bildzeitung has published an article with a header "The silliest american president" as Bush was chosen. Was not sure if i should add it :) Elmagnon
*You could add it to one of many articles on liberal media bias, but don't even think of putting it here--205.188.116.138 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be appropriate on the public perception main article. Kevin baas 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German newspapers 

message: I've removed this category because Bush is a member of :Category: Current national leaders, making this redundant because the latter category is a menber of the former.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s removal of [[:Category: Living people]]

message: In reference to this edit, I would note that this date is now enacted into the US Constitution, so only a constitutional amendment will change it. Unless we are going to change all references to US Senate and House term expirations as well (they could be changed by constitutional amendment too), the "expected to expire" phrase is inconsistent with our political articles and should be reverted, imo. (Note: the term is independent of the person filling the term and continues to expiration even if there is a vacancy filled during the term) NoSeptember talk 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add, when the law changes, we can change our article. This is a wiki, hooray!!! --LV (Dark Mark) 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Actually we can't becuase the page has been protected again! Almost like the entire unprotection was a farce, and when no one bit, the unprotector came along and vandalized it himself to give him an excuse to re-protect--152.163.100.74 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expiration of term

message: http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/index.php?q=node/2607 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.41.44 (talk • contribs) .
that link at the end says the woman was killed / x /ed out
yes, but she was fairly obviously deranged. see Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents Derex 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  are these rape charges real? 

message: This section hardly mentions praises and then elaborates on criticisms. More needs to be said about why Bush was reelected and why people continue to support him. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the world's great mysteries...  perhaps so little is said about it because so little is known. Kevin baas 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew i was setting myself up, but didn't think anyone was feeble-minded enough to bite. I could easily explain why Bush was re-elected and why so many people support him, and so could you, kevin bia..i mean baas. But honesty has never been a liberal's strong suit, has it. Anyway, i see the article isn't locked anymore, so i'll edit it if no one else will. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try and avoid personal remarks and remain civil. Thanks --LV (Dark Mark) 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 2nd Piston, I can call you names too.  It doesn't take any special talent.  And I really can't come up with any legitimate reason why people continue to support him.  I can come up with some opinions that people have given me in support of him, that I don't respect for multiple reasons (such as irrelevancy).   I can say they support him because they believe, dubiously, that osama bin laden is from iraq, that al qaeda and saddam hussien were cooperating, that iraq had wmd's, etc.  But in every reason I have heard that people support him, I can find no basis in reality.  I do not mean to make a personal attack by saying this, I am just telling you my honest experience.  Where you judge my earlier comment as being disingenuous, though it was somewhat of a joke, I was not being disingenuous.  Though I know reasons that people cite, I don't know of any that are relevant, thoughtful, and based on truth rather than propaganda.  Please don't take this personally.  You can go ahead and add in gay marriage stuff and karl rove's demographic analysises, it's certainly interesting and important. Kevin baas 18:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please remain civil and cease the personal attacks on Kevin's friends. Thank you. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public perception and assessments 

message: I'm a stickler for grammar and neatness in writing. All I want to do with this page is clean up some small but messy grammar and formatting mistakes.
This sentence:
::"in a particularly close and controversial general election." - although it doesn't show here, has an extra space between "controversial" and "general" due to an overextended hyperlink (I think - because when you put the cursor in between the space it highlights the link). But, I don't even know how to do that, so I'll leave that up to someone with more technical know-how.
::This list should be separated by semicolons...
::Bush is a member of a prominent political family: his father, George H. W. Bush, served as U.S. President for four years and as Vice President for eight(,) his brother Jeb Bush is the current Governor of Florida(,) and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a Republican United States Senator from Connecticut. 
The commas in parentheses should be semicolons...I don't feel like explaining why! (it has to do with the type of list the punctuation is separating)
paragon 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All I wanna do... 

message: I think Bush was a cheerleader.   But if he's not famous for being a cheerleader, maybe the category doesn't belong.  --Allen 04:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I hadn't thought of it that way, and it makes a lot of sense. --Allen 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Bush participated in cheerleading at Yale , he belongs in this category.  This extracurricular activity at a prestigious institution is a well-known part of his past.  Gilliamjf 00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we prepared to go through every celebrity and government official's extracurricular activies at their colleges and put them in those groups? -- 2nd Piston Honda 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bush owned a major league baseball club, which makes him eligible, later events notwithstanding. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cheerleader 

message: Admins: Please add a reference to this MediaWiki-based page on Pres. Bush.  Slightly different emphasis, but pretty good:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Walker_Bush
*WP:NPOV. No way. Harro5 03:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add SourceWatch link 

message: When editing this page the following message is currently displayed:
:WARNING: This page has been locked so that only administrators can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines.
However I can (as a non administrator) edit the page. the page is semi-protected, not fully protected. Thanks/wangi 12:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the devs appear to have changed something without telling anyone, or updating the protection notice, or providing an alternative protection notice. I'm positive they're aware of it, and I've mentioned it at WP:VPT, where the devs have soundly ignored the feature. I think the solution may be to reword (and format) the relevant Mediawiki: page so that it has some more generic message. After all, any admin worth half their salt should know better than to edit a protected page except in line with WP:PPol, which is all the red warning reminds them of. -Splashtalk 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see some discussion of the "Protected message" here (near bottom) or here. Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only administrators message 

message: http://www.digyourowngrave.com/george-bush-drunk-speech/
:Without looking I would still bet that is the clip from the Late Late show. Arkon 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you're good. 132.241.245.49 06:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  real footage of him drunk? 

message: While reading this article, I came upon a mis-labeled caption stating that the pic of Bush with a bullhorn at the WTC site was taken on September 14th, 2001.  According to all the major sources I have read (ABC News, NBC, the Associated Press) this pic was actually taken on September 13th, the day before.  Could some one further verify this for me?  This would be greatly appreaciated since I have no Wikipedia account.
:According to the White House web site, Bush's visit to the WTC site was on September 14.  This also matches my recollection. Brandon39 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September '01 Caption Incorrect 

message: "Audio archive of the Bush's weekly radio addresses" in the External Links section is currently linked to "The Offical Official Parody of President Bush's Weekly Radio Address". This site has really amusing content but others may not share my sense of humor, the site is rather missleading, with the exact same look and feel as the White House site with the exception of the title bar. Could someone who has a wikipedia account please point the link to the offical site "White House Radio"  and/or rename the link so that it is clearly labeled as a parody site. -- Flyscan 143.238.68.131 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch...I hadn't noticed that and I'll be glad to fix it.--MONGO 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link incorrectly labeled or missleading 

message: The best comment by Keyes can be found during an interview with Crossfire at the Alan Keyes archive:
:Press: Well, the other night at the debate he showed some conviction when the question was asked about the political philosopher that's influenced you the most. You said the founding fathers. I thought it was a pretty good answer. George W. Bush said Jesus Christ. Do you think he was showing conviction there or was it pure political pragmatism?
:Keyes: No, sad to say, I was -- I think he was showing an entire misunderstanding of the question. I found it kind of shocking and I think a lot of people did. Not, by the way, because of all the separation of church and state nonsense, no, but because G.W. Bush thinks that Jesus Christ was a philosopher, and this is not possible. Philosophers are people who seek the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. And there is a vast difference between the one category and the other individual. If he puts Christ in that kind of a category, then he has secularized him to a degree that reduces, in fact, what he really is. I don't admire Christ, and he doesn't influence my life. I worship him. He is the living son of the living God, and he doesn't influence my mind, he shapes, guides and commands that mind, because he is the sovereign of my will. Now, if -- that's not a philosopher's role, and I just found it strange that asked that question, you would respond with Christ. The most influential figure, certainly, but thinker, political philosopher, Jesus Christ was not a thinker, quote/unquote. He was the word itself. And so I just found it to be kind of -- what can I say? I thought it was a little bit of a misunderstanding of the question. And I also thought that it reflected a misunderstanding of who Christ really is.
::I have restored MONGO's deletion of this line, on the basis of this citation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Keyes' criticism of George Bush for naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher

message: C'mon, guys!  This looks like the White House's official bio.  -- NGerda 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the opposite is true. It's doubtful the White official bio would discuss in any detail the unfactual based accord of his "substance abuse" issues, or his "military controversy" or contradict the issues regarding the the War on Terror, or elaborate on international opinion polls.--MONGO 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If both sides are unhappy, it sounds like the ideal compromise. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep...mutually assured destruction!--MONGO 16:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: MONGO and I now both have a great deal of mutual regard, and I consider him a great friend, but we first met when we clashed as foes on this article.  Anyone who fancies a giggle should dig into the history of this talk page for our names, oh around February to June of last year I suppose. MONGO was new and I was still a bit wet behind the ears.  I'm happy with the result and I think it's part of Wikipedia that makes me most proud. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto for my experience. MONGO's a good guy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made me blush...gee thanks!--MONGO 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This article fails to make clear that this phony "controversy" is nothing but a malicious and baseless attack on President Bush from the Left.  The unsubstantiated allegations about Bush skipping service, etc. are made to sound legitimate, which they are not.
This article must mention the disgraced leftist journalists Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' failed attempt to smear Bush's reputation in September 2004 (less than 2 months before the election) using proven forgeries purporting to be official National Guard records.  CBS News has officially and unambiguously disavowed all claims to those documents' authenticity.  Bush-hating leftist contributors might wish they were real, but this does not make it so.
I note that Wikipedia has locked the public out from fixing this ridiculous article.  Why?  To perpetuate your anti-Bush propaganda without further complication?
Unless this article is changed by its owners to make clear that this wrongly labeled "controversy" has never been proven to be anything other than a false and baseless attack against the president, then Wikipedia is engaging in leftist propaganda of its own and has damaged its credibility.
-ATS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.1.133 (talk • contribs) 23:45, January 14, 2006  (UTC)
:Wikipedia have plenty of right wing editors who have edited this article. If you would like to edit this article, which was protected due to anonomyous vandalism, sometimes at the rate of 3 vandals per minute, make an account and make a few edits to other articles first. Then you will automatically be granted access to protected articles. To be clear: this article was protected so that those who hate Bush - the LEFT wing - could not defame him here. Anyhoo, if you can factually prove your claims about Bush not showing up for duty as propaganda, do so on this talk page. Please support your case using reputable sources (i.e. not The Weekly Standard or The National Review). CastAStone|(talk) 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just make something clear hear: burden of proof always lies on the person making the extraordinary claim.  In this case, that would be George W. Bush.  Specifically, George W. Bush has claimed that he served honorably in the U.S. military.   That's an exraordinary claim. Kevin Baastalk 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe... --LV (Dark Mark) 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phony and Malicious "Controversy" over President Bush's National Guard Service

message: To the unregistered people who have concerns about the controversies about George W. Bush, your concerns are important to the registered members editing this article.  However, bear in mind these controversies were moved to the elections section from the Bush prior to 2000 section to make the context of said controversies more fair and balanced.  (If you see earlier I had tagged these articles for this exact controversy and nobody objected to my moving of these sections and adding a stub tag to the Bush prior to 2000 section).
In my humble opinion, the fact that these controversies are in the elections section now put the controversies in context by implying they were allegations leveled by the oppostion to Bush (it is an election after all).
BlueGoose 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just make something clear hear: burden of proof always lies on the person making the extraordinary claim.  In this case, that would be George W. Bush.  Specifically, George W. Bush has claimed that he served honorably in the U.S. military.   That's an exraordinary claim. Kevin Baastalk 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe... --LV (Dark Mark) 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A call for calm (on both sides)

message: "Alan Keyes did smile during the debates when Bush made the comment about Jesus Christ." (source:MSNBC debate video)
I need some input regarding this sentence.  I had put it in and it was taken out because it was factual yet not relevant/unimportant.  And I'm torn as to whether that argument is correct or whether this sentence or something analogous to it provides context to the motives of Keyes' criticism.  BlueGoose 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Keyes

message: To prove no one will ever be happy on how this entry is handled.  This page is the most revised page in all of Wikipedia with 27809 revisions. More than 2 1/2 times the number 2 "wikipedia" with 11275.  Here's the rest of the top 10
 3.  Jesus (10045 revisions)
 4.  Adolf Hitler (9627 revisions)
 5.  Hurricane Katrina (9200 revisions)
 6.  United States (8365 revisions)
 7.  2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (7231 revisions)
 8.  September 2005 (7113 revisions)
 9.  John Kerry (7049 revisions)
10.  Michael Jackson (7029 revisions)
So, going by this, people are about 3 times likely to get upset about how Bush is portrayed than Jesus and Hitler. Squiggyfm 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do damnit! I do!--152.163.100.74 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting Fact

message: I see no mention of connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family/George W. Bush here or at Bush family. Shouldn't something this important be on this page? It's on the bin Laden family page. Cparker 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections to the bin Laden family