Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 46

message: Hostilities have never subsided. Not on May 1, 2003 and not now. This needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.48.115 (talk • contribs)  --All combat operations concerned with the invasion have officially ended--
This is bias, It is not fact Satv365 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military hostilities in Iraq did not end May 1, 2003 

message: I'm all for a balanced approach to this wikipedia entry.  But I'm finding that many criticisms, those based on factual political analysis, are either swept under the carpet with "main article links" or not mentioned at all.  I added Treaty Withdrawals to the Foreign Policy section, and mostly just listed the main points that the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration wiki entry lists.  It's really late at night and I don't want to dig through textbooks and class notes, but there is a lot to be said briefly in this and that section.  Would people with political science and international relations knowledge and referencing help me to reform parts of these 2 articles, and make any other notes of what might need expanding upon.  Thanks.
---Soorej 10:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Policy and other Criticisms 

message: Should the article mention Bush's call to renew the Ryan White Act, as he did in his 2005 2005 State of the Union address:  What about public or political opinion on AIDS? Perhaps the mention would be under domestic agenda and the opinion under criticism and public perception? Bill Clinton has supported Bush on AIDS, for one:
 Bush's stance on AIDS separates him from Ronald Reagan in that Bush embraces the compassionate conservative mantle, while for Reagan I support it was simply patriotic conservatism. Both have been criticized for economically neglecting the downtrodden (well, except fiscal conservatives have attacked Bush for his massive public works spending following Hurricane Katrina, but perhaps there is a bridge on addressing social issues. Minutiaman 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AIDS

message: Should any of the acts Bush signed into law in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina be included in the major legislation signed section?  These include the Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act, Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005,  QI, TMA, and Abstinence Programs Extension and Hurricane Katrina Unemployment Relief Act of 2005, Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 , Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 , and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 . Minutiaman 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hurricane Katrina disaster relief]] acts

message: There was a sitcom featuring and making fun of Bush.Does anyone know what's it's name?
New Babylon
:That's My Bush! ---DrLeebot 13:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sitcom

message: "Bush emphasized a "hands-off" approach to the conflict between Israel and Palestine in wake of rising violence and the alleged failure of the Clinton Administration's efforts to negotiate. Bush specifically disowned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for his support of the violence and militant groups, but following urgings from European leaders, he became the first American President to embrace a two-state solution envisaging"
I read this as a European, but I finThe implcation of 'Hands off' is that Bush was neutral rather than being backing the Israelis. Surely this should be altered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendavy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel Palestine

message: The introduction is completely too long...much of the information is unreferenced and needs to be repositioned in other sections.--MONGO 08:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article needs work. Between the article and this talk page, I have over 1,000 edits and now, after coming back to see it having not edited much here for some time, I see that the entire article is simply too long and much needs to be spun off into daughter articles.--MONGO 10:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I tried to change the last section about experts allegations of war crimes so that it reads more as a point of view held by some people.  If no one objects, I think it should be okay to remove the weasel words warning, as now I don't think the section reads as an opinion.  If there are no objections, I will remove the warning in a day or two, in order to give people time to post against this action.  If there is any contraversy, I will not remove the label, of course. Stop Me Now! 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be good to re-word it to specifically address who is alleging the war crimes, as the "some experts" is what prompted the original weasel tag. ThanksDubc0724 01:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: But getting back on topic..Can anyone tell me why "at the age of 30" is needed? 2nd Piston Honda 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not, really.  His DOB is in the article.  Any idiot can figure out that he was 30, given the date of the incident and his DOB.  It's being used to prove some point, whatever that is. Dubc0724 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I know I'm coming into this a bit late, but I took an extremely long time to read this whole discussion(Yay for black coffee!), and from the start, 2nd Piston Honda, I was wondering the exact same thing. I don't think anyone can give a valid reason supporting why the mention of his age should be in the article. But my opinion isn't really relevant, just thought this discussion could use an impartial speaker...--Wild One 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong and you're right Wild One. You're wrong, because your opinion does matter. Thats the great thing about Wikipedia. You're right, because the age really isn't relevant. AuburnPilot 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is "at the age of 30" needed? 

message: I removed the recently added "One Finger Salute" video from the Speeches Section. If it is added back, a separate section would need to be created. AuburnPilot 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edison, we must have missed each other by seconds. I left a message on your talk page. My only thought was that it isnt a speech. I have no issue with the video itself. AuburnPilot 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: WP policy is to have external links only to those sites that materially aid in a reader's understanding of the subject itself. The video in question doesn't do that; it's a throwaway; a novelty. I see no reason to include it here.Michael DoroshTalk 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Finger Salute 

message: Anti-Bush protesters outnumber pro-Bush rally -- 10-to-1?!?  In Salt Lake City?!?
*Salt Lake sounds off in protest and support
*A demand for truth: Mayor's blunt criticisms focus war debate
I wonder if all the speeches on Bush's 20-day tour will go as well. Step Two 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salt Lake City protest seems like something from San Francisco 

message: There has been a video circulating the internet for a while in which George Bush makes fun of a reporter wearing sunglasses during a press conference without realising he was blind. Anyone else feel this deserves a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenvY (talk • contribs) 
:Have any sources that that even exists? Iolakana•T 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This video clip would most likely meet the same fate as the "One Finger Salute" video. Look 2 sections above. AuburnPilot 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was certainly reported in The Times in June. Incidentally, I don't think The Times has any reason to have a particularly anti-Bush agenda but was just reporting something newsworthy. It is on The Times online website as "President finally sees the light". Bluewave 19:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And also reported in the UK's The Independent. (Note the mention of the "rare lapse into French" - even the Independent can't resist a sly joke about Bush's perceived lack of a world view.) Bluewave 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many things that are reported and/or are newsworthy, but that doesnt mean they are worthy of entry in an ecyclopedia. To quote Michael Dorosh above, "WP policy is to have external links only to those sites that materially aid in a reader's understanding of the subject itself. The video in question doesn't do that; it's a throwaway; a novelty." And may I add, I see no reason to include it here. AuburnPilot 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it others to decide whether it has a place in Bush's biography. However, someone asked for a source: I provided two. I'm not interested in making political points but I do appreciate good, balanced biographies and I don't think the current Bush biography on Wikipedia is either of those things. However, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute meaningfully myself. My best wishes to those of you who feel able to try. Bluewave 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A politician's attitude toward the visually impaired is certainly germain to understanding who he is. It's like Senator Allen calling someone from India "macaca." To exclude everything which does not create a favorable impression of a public figure is the province of the public relations spin doctor, but is not the policy of Wikipedia. Such censorship is POV. Include the material.Edison 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One might be able to make such a judgement on a politician if he made such a remark knowing he was blind.  The mention of this very minor and inconsequential incident does nothing to better this already very bloated article.--RWR8189 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with the "politician's attitide toward the visually impaired". Bush did not know of the reporter's ailments, and after learning of them, he immediately appoligized. If we're going to include it, lets atleast describe the situation correctly. AuburnPilot 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This event is being totally misinterpreted.   It does not show Bush's views towards the "visually impaired" as some are arguing.  The President did not know the individual was blind and did apologize immediately afterwards.  The rebuke came because it is considered extremely rude to address the President while wearing sunglasses.  They certainly make exceptions for individuals that are blind or extremely sensitive to sunlight and the President's advisors should have given him a heads up.  The original reason for the rebuke was because it was viewed as disrespectful.... the journalistic equivalent of wearing a baseball hat to church or flip-flops (thongs to some) to a funeral.  Lastly I would argue that this is in no way significant enough to rate a mention in this article.  --Looper5920 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush Internet Viral

message: Although Bush's low scores on recent public opinion polls are mentioned in depth, no mention is made of the fact that "Bush's approval ratings of slightly over 90 percent were the highest ever recorded in the history of the Gallup poll". This is from the introduction of chapter seven (Public Opinion and Political Socialization, p.205) in the college American Government textbook "American Government and Politics Today" (2003-2004 edition) published by Thomson Learning in 2003. The context of that quote is a discussion of an increase in American patriotism and support for the government following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The immediate context is: "This support bolstered the Bush administration's authority during a time of crisis. Indeed, Bush's  approval ratings of slightly over 90 percent were the highest ever recorded in the history of the Gallup poll, which is conducted by one of the major polling organizations. [end of paragraph]" Some mention of this information should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.86.210 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval Ratings 

message: This should be made more precise: "According to opinion polling, his popularity has declined." Rintrah 17:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: Should we mention that several people thinks that he planned 9/11.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredosolis (talk • contribs) 
:No. The rantings of unhinged kooks and conspiracists are hardly notable, and we'd be giving them undue weight by including them here. — Impi 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sure. Bush set up 9/11, and people ride Unicorns to get to Loli-Freakin-Pop Lane. --Yancyfry jr 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking that the attack was an "inside job" and that "Bush planned it" are entirely different things. I'm not an unhinged kook or conspiracist, but it would not surprise me at all if the attack was an inside job. It would really surprise me if Bush had anything to do with it directly though. --Arislan 11:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it probably isn't necessary in the main article. In any case, there are a lot of different ideas. For example, many may not believe it was an inside job, but they may also believe people inside the US government were aware, potentially including GWB... Nil Einne 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, there's already an article devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is where such claims would belong. Dubc0724 12:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11

message: Just read through this for the first time. In light of all the discussion I just wanted to say the article seems really well managed. Whoever's handling this is doing a bang up job IMHO. One odd sentence in the intro threw me off however - 
"After working on his father's presidential campaign, he purchased a share of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and in 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas."
This just doesn't 'roll right'. I think the mention of the baseball team can be left out here, and left to the lower sections. It sounds like the reason he was elected governor was because he purchased the team. Since this is locked, I'll simply leave my comments here and not mess with anything.--Jmathies 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  I think the Rangers stuff can be removed.  I'd like to sit on it for a bit to gather additional opinions as this is certainly not an egregious violation of policy or anything similar.  In the meantime, I did rearrange the sentences a tiny bit to answer the (correct) charge that the baseball team ownership is too close and appears linked to the election to the Texas governorship.  --ElKevbo 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it seems random. I guess it's supposed to be a midpoint between working on the campaign and becoming governor, but it definitely needs to be reworded. ElKevbo's edit is a step in the right direction but it still needs a little work. AuburnPilot 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: A citation was requested to verify the length of Bush's drivers license suspension. I was unable to find any reference to the exact length, only speculation. I used a Time Magazine article as the citation which simply states his license was temporarily suspended in Maine. I think this is sufficient detail. AuburnPilot 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sufficient detail except that a source that was cited at the time of your edit clearly showed the date which his driving privileges had been restored. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I guess I didnt see it. When you asked if anybody had anything on it, and marked it with  I assumed a citation was needed. If you have a better source, thanks for adding it. AuburnPilot 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I was wondering why the comment had been made that his license had been suspended for 30 days. "Duke53 | Talk" 23:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of DUI suspension 

message: why no mention of the dan rather thing?  70.125.134.13 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cbs

message: is wrong - please fix--80.134.201.43 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with it? Seems to be working just fine here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the german wikipedia articel about George W.Bush ... 

message: George W. Bush is not Pro-life and does not belong in the Pro-life politician category. 75.3.50.41 00:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is he not pro-life? The strict definition of pro-life is to oppose abortion. He obviously opposes abortion and even opposes stem-cell research so unless you have a broader definition of pro-life, he is resolutely pro-life.Gdo01 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you may have misread the definition of Pro-Life: "the self-description for those in North America and Great Britain who are of the general political opinion that abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and other issues regarding the sanctity of life are morally wrong and should be illegal in most cases." I'm fairly certain it does not deal with capital punishment, even in the most stretched sense of the term. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Call him anti-abortion then. Dubc0724 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, but then we'd have to have a new category; one for a term that isn't used (anti-abortion). There's a reason the term is pro-life/pro-choice. Nobody wants to be seen as anti-life or anti-choice. 75.3.50.41 is splitting hairs. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've always hated the "pro-life" terminology.  As if abortion is the only way to end a life, and like you said, as if anyone would be "anti-life".  Oh well. Dubc0724 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So by your definition no one is pro-life except maybe the Vatican. We would have to completely gut the category if pro-life had to include opposition to all these. Gdo01 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably.  Or more accurately, a lie. Dubc0724 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-life politician 

message: I marked the Foreign policy subsection in the Second term section as unreferenced.  I know it's (supposed to be) a summary of a longer article but it's still completely unacceptable for an entire subsection to have *no* references whatsoever only one reference in any article, particularly the biography of a living person.  I see that there have been some recent, substantial edits to the subsection so perhaps the references were there but have gotten lost in the shuffle.  If that's the case, please restore them as you find them and have time.  Thanks!  --ElKevbo 21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Second term) Foreign policy subsection

message: It's true, I guess, link: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.184.219.238 (talk • contribs) .
:That's interesting, but it has no place in the article.  Please read WP:RS.--RWR8189 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Internet polls are almost never reliable sources. (And what kind of "worst president" survey lists Abraham Lincoln in seventh place?) szyslak (t, c, e) 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The kind of poll where most participates don't know anything about the majority of the presidents. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​(Talk) 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It'll be interesting to see where GWB sits on the list 50 years from now.  I suspect that these polls are meaningless at this point, at least for the last 3 or 4 presidents. It's just too soon to really judge what mattered and what didn't.Dubc0724 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it's meaningless, right? Dubc0724 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leader on the Worst Poll

message: In light of foreign policy controversies, it bears mentioning that Bush had never been out of the United States before becoming president, barring a few vacations to Mexico.  Does anyone have a source to confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificBoy (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 September 2006
:I'm not sure I'd agree that it bears mentioning in this context unless there is a known instance where this effected foreign policy. Otherwise, it's just speculation. He hadn't been to all 50 states either, but he's still President. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​(Talk) 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Policy 

message: I pray somebody to writhe that Bush had a special relationship with European leaders Blair (U.K.), Berlusconi (Italy) , Aznar (Spain), Barroso (before Portugal, after E.U.) and, now, Merkel (Germany)... and had conflictual relationship with Chirac (France), Schröder (Germany), Prodi (before E.U. and after Italy) and Zapatero (Spain)--87.17.103.8 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Dubc0724 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush and the EU's leaders 

message: Bush never withdrew from the Ottawa Treaty on International Landmines because the U.S never signed it to begin with.  We denied it completly back in 1997 because of S.Korea.  I will delete it in 48 hours unless someone objectsDrew1369 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you're right. The US never signed the Ottawa Treaty because of the debate over the use of landmines on the N Korea/S Korea border. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why do they use them in NK? just out of interest it seems kind of.. whats the word? evil! to me --82.43.244.187 14:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Ottowa treaty backout 

message: I don't think this photo is appropriate at all, and have reverted it. It's one thing to add a photo this inflamatory (which I don't believe belongs in this article) but it is quite another to replace an existing photo. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: come one.. its a common criticism of Bush that he failed in iraq, this was a photo made to criticise him, I added it to outline his criticisms! --Frogsprog 14:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is inappropriate. We'll see how the discussion goes, and if any other editors comment. I don't believe this photo would be acceptable under WP:LIVING. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also tacky.  Shameful. Dubc0724 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: At a bare minimum, this photo doesn't belong in this particular article.  It might be appropriate in one of the sub-articles, particularly the foreign policy one.  --ElKevbo 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relationship of this image to the article's topic (a biography of the current President) is tangential at best and accordingly, I don't believe it's an improvement to the article's informativeness or accuracy. It seems intended to provoke or criticize, not to present the criticisms of others. on that basis, I strongly support it's removal. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV-warriorette is right. --kizzle 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to second the removal. It doesn't contribute to the substance of the article. Benzocane 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of bloody Iraqi Girl 

message: I know the discussion page is meant for serious possible edits to the article at hand, but this one has been done really well. For all the bias that exists out there this one surely collects some of the most, but the article as it stands now is quite clean. Congratulations to all who worked on it.  69.157.245.136 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just wanted to say...

message: I just wanted to politely step forward and quietly ask the question of which concerns. How exactly close can one trust worthy and intelligent and informed person reasonably and rationally approximate as correctly as possible in words is our United States President George Bush to this very day in effect capturing and indeed catching Osama Bin Laden given what is the sheer mass volume and the huge numbers of people and computers and internal and external resources who are working exhaustively around the clock in the past 5 years now to acheiving this objective.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 21:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you asked this same question over on the Osama page, I'll give the same response: You may want to take a look at WP:TPG. A quote from the guideline: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.". ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question / Close or Far ?

message: "Faced with serious drinking issues and difficulties in his professional and personal life, Bush abandoned his socializing lifestyle and began attending church regularly."
Okay, truth be told, I don't care much for Dubya, but I must say I have no idea what this means.  What is a "socializing lifestyle?"  I attend church myself, and I consider it (amongst its other pluses) to be a place where socializing happens (particularly during coffee hour).  I suppose what I really object to is that this sentence (regardless of whatever it is attempting to say about Bush, which I'm not sure I understand), is that it seems to be dividing the world into drinking, socializing non-church-going folks and those who go to church and thus have no "problems" of the personal or professional sort.  This is a demonstrably false proposition (and it would be even more insulting, I would suspect, if I weren't a church-goer myself).  Any ideas for turning down the rhetoric and implicit "culture war" baggage here? Blondlieut 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's not well-explained, but in Bush's life his conversion to evangelical Christianity did coincide with a major lifestyle change, i.e. he gave up drinking and became a respectable family man. This doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else, and no one is trying to make a statement about churchgoing in general. Walton monarchist89 08:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure becoming a United Methodist is a "conversion" to evangelical Christianity in the way you mean that, but I won't debate the issue.  Perhaps something like "Bush credits an invigorated faith life as helping him abandon alcohol and face other professional and personal difficulties"? Blondlieut 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socializing Lifestyle

message: Can we get a better source for this edit, claiming Bush said an anit-semetic statement. A quick look at the website says that it mightn't be all that friendly to anyone who disagrees with its "alternative view". Thanks. Harro5 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishy claims 

message: It appears that Bush and others are pushing our Nation into a tri-national assembly in which fundamental change will result.
1. The border will be along the entire North American landmass (rather than the USA), our currency will become Ameros (rather than dollars), and there will be a new national (Mexico, USA, Canada) government.
2. The result will be the elimination of the United States of America.
Certainly, this was begun under Bush's father, furthered by Clinton and today this agenda is being pushed to completion by Bush.
Examples of results so far: drugs are more easily entering our Nation, aliens easily enter our Nation, NAFTA has gutted much of our industry, CAFTA will finish this effort.
These are fundamental changes that are working to diminish a once proud nation.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.12.180.166 (talk • contribs) 12:23, September 26, 2006
:Please discuss this elsewhere or directly relate your discussion (with appropriate citations from reliable sources) to the George W. Bush Wikipedia article.  --ElKevbo 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America 

message: Is this category really appropriate for this article? On the list of "teetotalers", the wikiarticle George W. Bush substance abuse controversy is the source for including him in the category. I'm not sure speculation is enough. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Misread category; please ignore. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: About as much as you don't know the meaning of "ignore". In the future, please do not delete comments made by other users on the talk page . I assume it was unintentional, so please be careful in the future. Thanks! ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think that can happen sometimes when two people edit a page at the exact same time. No worries. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 02:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:American teetotalers 

message: And while were on the topic, do folks not know that Methodism is a form of Protestant Christianity?  If we're going to tag President George W. Bush as "Christian," do we need to add that tag under every other President (and under the "religion" identification for United Methodist Senator Hillary Clinton, I presume)?  (I don't believe we've had a Jewish or Muslim or Hindu President yet.)  If folks are truly unaware that United Methodists are Christian, if they follow the link, there is a cross and a collection of Christianity-related articles in the box on the right-hand side.  I think that should fill folks in on where the United Methodist Church stands.  Blondlieut 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodism not Enough?

message: "Bush specifically disowned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for his support of the violence and militant groups, but following urgings from European leaders, he became the first American President to embrace a two-state solution in which an independent Palestine would exist side-by-side with Israel."
Okay, I tried to edit this sentence, but then I read it again and realized it still made no sense.  When did Bush "own" Arafat such that he then had to (later) "disown" him?  Somehow, I feel certain that "disown" is not the right word.  Parents disown their wayward children, but I don't think that's what the writer means to say. There's no citation in any event, I feel compelled to point out, even if that's the sort of relationship Bush previously had with Arafat (that of father and son ... although I'm not sure who the Daddy would have been).  It's also a run-on sentence, but that's easier to fix. And what does it mean to "specifically" disown someone (as opposed to, I guess, "generally" disown someone)?  Blondlieut 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Bush denounced Palestinian leader..."". That might be the word the editor was searching for. I agree "disowned" isn't the right connotation we're looking for here. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Go for it, AP, you signatory megalomaniac, you.  Blondlieut 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Signatory megalomaniac".....I kind of like that. My very own cognomen. :) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 02:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arafat

message: "During Bush's visit to India, the U.S. formally restored diplomacy by creating a strategic partnership on economic and nuclear issues."
Okay, beyond having no citation, this cannot be right.  Bush's trip was no Nixon-in-China tour de force.  We've always had "diplomacy" (at least in the sense of diplomatic relations, otherwise I don't know what this means) with India.  I'm not sure what "strategic" means in front of "partnership," except to demonstrate that the phrase was lifted wholesale from a press release.  In fact, the whole sentence would be more helpful if it said what the parternship was about (i.e., giving India more nukes) then devolving into an exercise in labeling (i.e., "we have a strategic partnership," break out the mango lassis and the chardamon tea).  Would a date be asking too much?  Blondlieut 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just changing "formally restored" to "strengthened"?  And is there a good citation supporting this ("this" being either the statement as it currently stands or the proposed statement)?  --ElKevbo 01:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: So this is what the article says:
"On August 1, 2005, in response to a question about allowing intelligent design in public schools, Bush endorsed the intelligent design movement's Teach the Controversy approach, answering, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting - you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."[54] The National Academy of Sciences and the established scientific community regard this a political decision, and point out that intelligent design is a reframing of creationism and is religion, not science."
But honestly, my response is, so what?  He answered a question-- I presume in a press conference-- about his opinion on Intelligent Design (which I think is dumb beyond belief, and which perhaps we might think belongs in there on that basis alone-- but hasn't he said plenty of dumb things?).  But as far as I can tell from this, he hasn't done anything or proposed anything about "teaching the controversy" at the federal level.  If he has, the article should mention that.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what his "naked" opinion on Intelligent Design without some sort of federal mandate would mean, as this just leaves the matter within the power of states and local school boards to decide on their own. Thus I believe this section above should otherwise be removed. I mean, what "decision" is the writer talking in the last sentence?  The mere "decision" to answer a question at a press conference in a particular way?  That's not enough.  Blondlieut 03:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent Design

message: "Internationally Bush enjoys a very unfavorable opinion with a large majority of countries judging his administration as negative for world security."
Okay, I tried to clean this up, but someone changed it back.  The citation makes clear that the survey is of 21 countries, and that within those 21 countries, a majority of folks in 18 don't like our Dubya much (I think our own USA gets on that list too, given that his approval rating is significantly below 50% here, but whatever).  Anyway, 18 countries, seeing as how there's almost 200 countries, is not "a large majority of countries."  It's 18 countries out of the 21 surveyed.
What am I missing?Blondlieut 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - my fault.  I missed something or was cleaning up related language when I reverted your changes.  --ElKevbo 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large Majority of Countries

message: I saw someone delete it and the entire trivia section. Please explain why it is not trivia. By definition, it seems like it would be since it is inconsequential. It is not like Bush's nickname affects his foriegn policy. Get with it people. HollyWolly 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, neither his proper name, nor his birthdate, affect foreign policy either, so I guess I'm not following you.  I guess I'm also not following you insofar as here you seem to be taking a stand *against* trivia, where as further down the page, you seem to be taking a stand in *favor* of trivia.  If we were going to get with "it," just what "it" would that be, Ms. Wolly?  Now, for the record, if my nickname were "Dubya," I would not find that fact inconsequential.  I would find it of rather severe consequence if, say, tomorrow my nickname were to become a letter of the alphabet.  How about you, Ms. W?  Or should we call you Ms. Dubya?  Does that suddenly feel of consequence to you?  Blondlieut 02:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How is the nickname not trivia?

message: I feel that the mention of the plame affair should be cut from the lead of this article, being that the scandel has ended with no proof of any culpability to anyone in Bushs administration or Bush himself, since Richard Armitage admitted he was the leaker. Judgesurreal777 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Libby's indictment?  Wasn't that directly related to the Plame Affair?  --ElKevbo 01:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, we know that when people admit that they did the deed that they must be guilty then.  Everyone who reads People knows that.  At any rate, whose Administration do you think Armitage worked in?  The State Department is still "part of" the Administation; it's all one big happy Executive Branch. Blondlieut 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you stating that this material should remain in the article or be removed?  --ElKevbo 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the "affair" regaring Ms. Plame is forever part of the Administration's history:  The infamous "16 words" in the state of the union address/Iraq wishes to procure uraninum from Nigeria/Administration alleged attempts to discredit Ambassador Wilson who opposed Iraq war/Administration "outs" his CIA wife, presumably in reliation/Special Counsel probe to uncover leak/Armitage (who works in the Bush State Department) takes credit for that leak.  Did I miss anything? Blondlieut 18:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame affair

message: Add that Bush has pushed his immigration "guest worker" agenda.
some that gets lost with the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.201.223 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration 

message: I have added a very slight section about Katrina in the hope that others will begin filling in the entry. As noted at the top of this page, there is no serious discussion of Katrina in the entry, even though the disaster and the governmental response constitute a major milestone of Bush's second term. I will start adding sources and more information, but, to state the obvious, this needs to be a collaborative effort. Again: I have initiated this edit because I believe the entry requires a Katrina section, but the text I've added is itself far from sufficient--it consists almost exclusively of text lifted from other wikipedia entries... THANKS Benzocane 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there should be a brief section detailing the controversy over his handling of the Katrina affair-but most of the detail should remain in the separate article on Katrina. Bear in mind this article is already rather long, and various users are (metaphorically) tearing each other's throats out on this page over what else belongs in it. This is probably the most difficult article on the whole of Wikipedia to edit and not get criticised. Walton monarchist89 10:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the Katrina entry should be as efficient as possible. But I do think it needs to be detailed given the historic importance of the topic. Certainly it should only include information that pertains specifically to Bush. Do you think the meteorological details, such as they are, should be removed? Or condensed? Thanks! Benzocane 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I say they should be removed. People can get the meteorological info form the Katrina article itself. However, seeing how it's harn no to make an edit without getting a bunch of editors on you, I say we should try yo gather concensus on this first--Acebrock 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. I'll see if I can find a more efficient way to communicate those details. And yes, let's see what other editors think--I'm sure the entry will start to grow and there will have to be a decision about what details are pertinent. Benzocane 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be cut down to two paragraphs with a main article link to the other page. Anything more detailed, then Bush's actions, and specific criticisms belong in the main article page. With the main article link people should get the idea that this is a very brief overview and see the main article for much more detailed analysis. PPGMD 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. I'll streamline the text I've already posted and do my part to try to keep the entry efficient. It certainlly seems like the political dimension of Katrina is more important in this entry than details about the storm itself...Benzocane 03:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a main article tag to the section leading to the Hurricane Katrina article. I don't know if there's a Bush response related article or not, but the tag is atleast there. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. Titoxd(?!?) 03:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Titoxd. I swapped it out. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 03:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting started on Katrina

message: "Bush spent much of his second term consolidating power.  This was made possible by the unconditional
support of the majority of Congress, which was controlled by his Republican Party.
He initated programs to spy on all Americans without obtaining warrants.  These had few results as they
generated too much information to be useful.  However, the threat of these programs was used to stifle dissent.
He started several programs of extrajudicial imprisonment: a gulag at Guantanamo Bay, a system of secret prisons in Eastern Europe, and a system of "renditions" to friendly dictatorships.  People who were suspected of associating with terrorists -- generally Muslims or those of Middle Eastern descent -- were kidnapped and imprisoned secretly under these programs.  Torture was common in all three programs.  Most of the people involved in fact had nothing to do with terrorism, although there were some genuine terrorists caught as well.  He resisted charging any of these people in the civilian or military courts.  At every step, he fought oversight.  When these programs were revealed, there was some public outcry, and eventually they were declared illegal by the 
Supreme Court.  He promptly had Congress change the laws to legalize all of his activities, in a rush at the
end of session on September 28 and 29, 2006.
The media in the United States helped make this possible.  While foreign media reported routinely on the actions taken by Bush to consolidate his personal power, the US media reported very little of it.  Instead, most of the US media printed the press releases and statements by Bush and his party members, which were often quite inaccurate."
This is neutral POV.  Nobody would blink twice at it if it were being written about a figure from the past: say, Queen Elizabeth I.  You may not see it now, but you will in ten years.  And you probably already do see it if you do extensive research, including the non-US news media.
Frankly, the current article is quite substantially biased in favor of GWB.  I think it's the "shock factor": people don't want to believe that he's acting so differently from the way Presidents normally behave, so they write an article which makes him seem like any other President.  Which he's not.
But Wikipedia sucks on current events, because people have an investment in believing false things about them, an investment which they usually don't have in events of the distant past.  Wikipedia would do better if it set a cutoff: for instance, no articles on anything newer then ten years.  And that's my conclusion to this comment.  If you can't make a page which gives an accurate description of the man's record, just delete the page entirely.  Short of that, this should be marked as a page which should *not* be put in a print publication, because it will embarass Wikipedia terribly in a few years.
:You ought to know that this does not belong on a talk page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This encyclopedia is not here to provide a platform for promoting your political views, which are clearly radical anti-Bush. I think you're also wrong in almost everything that you say - but even if you're right, it is of no consequence. Please stick to the facts, and keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. Walton monarchist89 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just becuase you don't agree with the facts that are presented above, does not invalidate them as such. In additoin, just because you and a few other contributers like to promote your radical pro-Bush political views does not mean that this article should suffer from a POV such as yours (or anyone else for that matter). VinnyCee 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To all the above: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. This page is for discussing changes to the article. I suggest this section be removed from the page as off topic and irrelevant. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 03:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree w/ AP, and we are not "fellow travellers," politcally speaking. On the merits of the article, Gitmo and torture are discussed, as is surveillance, and the courts' various holdings that various programs constitute unconstitutional deprivation of rights.  But the idea that it has been during Dubya's *second* term, as opposed to his first, when his popularity has been decreasing, is when he was "consolidating power," is meritless.  Given that stability is a hallmark of American democracy (regardless of the popularity of the occupants of constitutional offices), Bush, like Clinton before him, has never had to "consolidate power."  To the extent there were questions regarding legitimacy during Dubya's *first* term, the article does discuss those.  Blondlieut 12:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You know what this will say in 10 years?

message: Is there a page regarding famous persons' neologism, & famous mispronunciation?
I do think that this morning George Bush, the Second, called me " agnostarc" [ ignostic].
I do think that we should list such pronunciations.
Thank You.
hopiakuta 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Bushism the article that you are looking for? Bluewave 15:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation