Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 16

message: why not? is  it not  interesting?
This seems to be fixed Mir 03:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: still no information about the deficit

message: Please don't forget the part about this being the largest popular vote in the history of the US. Thanks.--66.53.136.79 08:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-election 

message: I would love to see an article on the public reactions to Bush's reelection. Everything from Michael Moore and that guy who shot himself at ground zero  to Rush limbaugh and co. I don't feel I know enough about it to write it myself. Seabhcan 17:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page suggestion: [[Reactions to the Reelection of George W. Bush]]

message: Once the protection is lifted I would offer a minor grammatical editing of the last paragraph as follows.  
:His cabinet includes figures prominent in past Republican administrations, notably Colin Powell, who had served as and United States National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H. W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had served in the same position under Gerald Ford.
to 
:His cabinet includes figures prominent in past Republican administrations, notably Colin Powell, who had served as United States National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H. W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had served in the same position under Gerald Ford.
pardon if I put this edit in the wrong place .lloydh
:Nope, it's in the right place. I have made this minor change (removing an "and" in the first sentence). Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical change 

message: Please add: <BR>
sl:George W. Bush --andrejj 19:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- ChrisO 20:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovenian interwiki 

message: The Picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BushCAGovs.jpg has been changed at the source to a Political Statement over the image.  This needs changed ASAP.  This is stupid and unethical.
:Fixed. If you still see the propaganda version you should clean your cache. I also protected that image, so it should be impossible to sneakily change that image anymore. andy 22:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone Changed Pictures 

message: check it out! it flashes 'kerry for president'. have refreshed and same thing. does anyone know how to fixs this? Nuclear man 05:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me. It's got to be a caching problem of some sort - perhaps your ISP's cache? -- ChrisO 08:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I didn't see it, so obviously it has been fixed.  That said, the way to get past "ISP problems" is that what you were seeing was probably from your ISP's proxy cache.  With most browsers if you hold sown the shift key while clicking reload/refresh it will force the proxy server to grab a new copy of the page/image/object rather than use the one it has got.  Otherwise, depending on the ISP's proxy configuration, you'd have to wait around 24 hours.  --BenM 12:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP - URGENT fix required 

message: Given the recent spate of vandalism, and the number of extremely angry/frustrated people in the U.S. (and abroad) today, I'm locking this down against vandals right now.  If someone else wants to unprotect, they can, but then please do so knowing you'll watch this.  The vandalism was literally so fast I couldn't keep up with it, from multiple IPs so that rollback was ineffective. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unprotecting on a probationary period.  If it gets out of hand, I'll have to reprotect.  I'm hoping that vandalism won't be as heavy since the election is now over, but I realize that people are still pretty angry.  This goes without saying, but I'll guard this page like a hawk. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta say that I think that's a bad idea.  Having had numerous vandals editting the page less than an hour ago I expect to see it continue.  Hope it doesn't though. violet/riga (t) 22:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also hope it doesn't.  We've only had one vandalism so far (page move), but I suspect this is probably because most aren't aware that it's unprotected.  I'll watch the page closely. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: No, it's juvenile idiocity - what's the point of taking your frustration out on Wikipedia? -- ChrisO 00:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Can someone at least repair the vandalized photo near the top of the page? I think we can all do without that. MisfitToys 23:26, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Could someone get rid of the middle-finger screencap that's replaced the image above "The Bush family watches tee ball on the White House lawn."? Not sure if this is the same one MisfitToys was talking about. --Zantolak 23:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Done. The image is now locked. -- ChrisO 00:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree completely.  I tried unprotecting, but it was too much.  I couldn't revert if more than one vandalism occured with multiple IPs because I couldn't access the older versions (problem on wikimedia's end...something died).  It seems to be working now.  Since this topic is changing, I'll try unprotecting again after I have ensured that I'll be able to access older versions and after I'm done my homework ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 01:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Oh God...  "He has since used the tragedy to forward an agressive policy of pre-empting any nation he feels is "evil." This would be quite typical of any fundamentalist, uncaring, moronic asshole, not unlike Mr. Bush."  -delete.-  I don't necessarily love the man, but come on!  NPOV!!  -15:53, 7 November 2004.  -Thorns among our leaves
but its true, and im being perfectly serious 209.197.155.46 (Calgary, AB, CA)
Yeah, well. I've resisted the urge to vandalize this page, but this is not the place for political debate of any sort. Any comment in support of the man should be deleted with similar haste. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of recent vandals

message: Would anyone object if I merged the three ugly office holder boxes at the bottom of the page into one box, so it looks nicer?  I promise I wouldn't edit the content of the article. Gentgeen 12:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: please do, it's been bothering me as well.  same with reagan's article. Wolfman 13:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When you do, please change the years he's president, it should be 2001-Present (not 2009, since that's not definite, see earlier discussion under Crystal Ball?) Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugly officeholder boxes 

message: erm, why isn't his party mentioned in the lead?  or is that so obvious it's been missed off?
:I think the convention is to put it in the fact table. --Xanadu 19:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead 

message: An anonymous editor deleted many of the critical sources from the "Further reading" list.  When that attempt at censorship was reverted, the same anon came back and moved those sources to the bottom of the list.  I suggest that the books by Bush should be listed first, perhaps under a subheading "By George W. Bush" or if not, then followed by a blank line to set them off from the others.  The ones about Bush should then be listed either chronologically or, what would be my preference, alphabetically by author.  Trying to give more prominence to the pro-Bush works is not NPOV.  Many of these sources would fall neatly into "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush" categories, but not all would, so I don't think we should try to organize them that way.  Does anyone object to alpha by author?
:I asked the person why, their response was, "I reordered the further reading list so that people can more easily find books that are in line with their political ideals." Due to the subjectiveness of such ordering, as you have mentioned; I'm in favor of alphabetical order.
The charge that the Taliban were harboring bin Laden can't be stated as an established fact.  Given the limits of the Taliban's control of Afghanistan and the strength of bin Laden's own forces, there would have been a serious question whether the Taliban government could seize bin Laden even if it wanted to.  The much more powerful U.S. military couldn't flush him out of the mountains where he was thought to be.  Therefore, I've restored the "accused of harboring" language.  JamesMLane 07:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not the case that they said they wished they could help.  They were hostile to the U.S. and also had a political interest in not admitting that they didn't control large chunks of the country.  Nevertheless, they weren't harboring him if he was actually holed up in the mountains beyond their reach.  I think "harboring" is the right word as long as it's presented as an accusation.  We could drop "accused" if we toned it down to something like "the Taliban didn't immediately seize bin Laden and hand him over", but that wouldn't be fair to Bush because it wouldn't fairly convey his rationale for invading, which was the accusation of harboring. JamesMLane 08:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Your argument is valid, but I have one in return: Bush's policies in civil rights should justifiably be impugned. No wonder NAACP really, really disliked him. For an official flavor to all this, you can read the full report at this site by the US Commission on Civil Rights assailing Bush's record. Also, this may cause some outrageous responses, but respect doesn't come with the title. And for those Bush fans who will jump on this piece as being biased: the only approvable thing he probably has done in matters of race relations is having a racially diverse cabinet. DoesPHalt 05:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Bush

message: I have moved to Talk:George W. Bush/First term some recently added material (by the stuart, I believe) that is redundant and has NPOV problems, but parts of it might be worth integrating into the appropriate sections. Gazpacho 22:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the block of imformation in question to George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States, rewrote and added to it and placed it in cleanup to hopefully removed the "NPOV" problems. I also created a new section in this article called "Years in the white house" and created the article George W. Bush's second term as president of the United States and put links to both of these articles in it. Whew!--The_stuart 22:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant material

message: The New York Times did a story about the edit war on this page: Mudslinging Weasels Into Online History. I guess it's good publicity, but it would be nice if the author had pointed out that all the vandalism here could be (and was) rapidly undone. Oh well.--Carl 03:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYTimes 

message: As I said on the POTUS talk page (regarding the end of Bush's term, the ending date for resigning Cabinet officials is on the last day of their position. Ashcroft will likeley be AG into 2005, as he stated he will remain until his successor is confirmed. -- Jwinters | Talk 03:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's likely.  They probably won't try to take up confirming Gonzales in this year's lame-duck session, given the impending firestorm over his legal advice about the Geneva Conventions and other "quaint" notions.  Nevertheless, I don't think we should give an ending date based on speculation.  We can just state the fact that he said he'd serve until the confirmation of his successor. JamesMLane 05:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet resignations

message: George_W._Bush#Quotes. --Blade Hirato 08:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsisting vandalism

message: Although a search for Dubya leads here, there is no information on Dubya, its etymology (Ancient variation of letter "W" in Texas)
Pronunciation: 'duhb-"yah
:It's at the bottom of "Personal life, service, and education."--Blade Hirato 12:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubya 

message: The last paragraph under the section "Public perception and assessments" has this error:
'The former have focused on matters such as the economy, homeland security, and especially his leadership after the September 11 attacks; the latter on matters such as the economy, the controversial 2000 election, and the occupation of Iraq.'
So do both sides agree on the economy? If so, remove economy from the sentence, otherwise clarify.
:Bush has been both praised and criticized for the performance of the economy, and for his handling of it.  Exit polls from the election showed that opinions were split on whether the economy was doing well.  Those who thought it was tended to vote for Bush, those who thought it was not tended to vote for Kerry.  Similarly, some people think the tax cuts were a useful stimulis, others a wasteful profligacy.
:I agree that the wording is confusing - and if it comes down to it, he's been both praised and criticized for homeland secuity, his leadership after Sept 11, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Perhaps it should be reworded to indicate the level and scope of disagreement?
:'He has come into high praise and stringent criticism for such matters as the economy, his tax cuts, his handling of September 11th, homeland security, the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, his education policy, his...'  Well, that list could go on for a ways, but that's probably the core issues.  Thoughts?  Codayus 02:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification Error 

message: I believe the last edit before protection was accurate. Bush's words were "with us or with the terrorists", while Condoleezza Rice's words were "you are either with us or against us." Gazpacho 14:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean the gesture. It's OK, the caption fills in the details. Gazpacho 00:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: As an alternative, I agree with the comments earlier on this page that the entire "Quotations" section should be deleted. JamesMLane 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: Please note that there is some thinkexist spam on the protected page; please remove it when the page is unprotected. Elf-friend 16:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ThinkExist Spam