Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 48

message: I have restored a minor note which was in the article a few months ago.  Since it refers to a description made by Bush of the nature of his own presidency, it seems highly relevant & noteworthy to me.  I can't begin to imagine why it was removed & could find no mention of it on the talk page.  Kasreyn 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It belongs in the article. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, this should be included but it needs to be elaborated on. KC0MLP 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is "a citation to the full quote."  I don't think it's POV where it's located in the article right now.  --ElKevbo 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "War President" restored 

message: The Iraq War section is listed under the President's first term, but much of the information it contains carries over into the sceond term.  Any suggestions as to how it should be organized? Jpers36 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War section 

message: The Economic Policy section is only three paragraphs?  Would anyone mind filling it up with some more info?  Fephisto 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't.  The three paragraphs in the article are only for the first term.  If you want to add more information (which is certainly possible and likely desireable), please do so in a new or different article.  This one is already very long.  I also don't think that particular section needs more detail although it might be better served by different details.  --ElKevbo 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Policy 

message: Not that it's a big deal or anything, but, when coupled w/"social services" and in the context used here, social security is a common noun meaning, "a field of social welfare concerned with social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment, families with children and others."--Evb-wiki 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social security 

message: I've always thought it was a severe deficiency of this article to not even mention Will Ferrell. As for Family Guy, it is very important because it is one of the few animated shows to criticize Bush directly. The Simpsons does so in disappointingly oblique ways (e.g., "Commander Cuckoo-Bananas"). Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This material is not at all notable to George W. Bush's bio and it should in no way be included in the article. I am against it 100%. -- AuburnPilottalk 22:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Under absolutely no circumstances should any of this trivia be included in the article, and I will personally take it to arbitration if the revert war continues. --Iriseyes 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird threat of the year award contender. Gzuckier 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know they want us to keep our speeches short, so I just want to thank my mom, my dad, my husband (you are my guiding light! I love you baby!) and my computer, for providing me with this incredible award. Oh, is that the orchestra? Well, I guess they want me to cut this shorter. Thank you, Wikipedia Academy! --Iriseyes 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer we shorten the article as it is before including even more trivia. --Iriseyes 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually really like this idea. It lets the trivia party write what they like, and keeps this article clean and the anti-trivia group satisfied. Could one of the advocates of the trivia section please spearhead this? --Iriseyes 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's an excellent suggestion and the proposed article could turn out to be very interesting and informative.  --ElKevbo 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably the best solution. (Personally, I feel that Wikipeida too often starts out with something reasonable like "George Bush is often portrayed in the media as ....." and ends up with a list of 250 items like "In St. Mary's Day Care of Winnetka Illinois 2005 Christmas pageant, the King Herod was wearing a Bush mask".Gzuckier 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about Fictionalized portrayals of Woodrow Wilson? 2nd Piston Honda 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, sounds good to me.  I'd like to see how Wilson has been portrayed fictionally, both during his tenure as President and in the time since.  Fictionalized portrayals of Abraham Lincoln would be very interesting as well. Fictionalized portrayals of Millard Fillmore, on the other hand, may not receive much content. Jpers36 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wikipedia's systematic anti-Fillmore bias rears its ugly head again...  --ElKevbo 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mallard Fillmore Gzuckier 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sarcasm is really wasted effort at Wikipedia.  Kasreyn 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The false authority of Wikipedia makes us take ourselves too seriously. But hey, Wikipedia is a better time waster than most. --Iriseyes 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh crap. I was just about to turn in a paper on Fictionalized portrayals of Millard Fillmore. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be the proposed "fictionalized portrayals of..." articles proposed for those modern era presidents and a few of the more famous ones from the past (e.g., Washington, Lincoln). But in every case, the main article should mention the most important of these. SNL and Family Guy are probably the most important in Bush's case. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Who is going to inform the folks who fictionally portray George Bush, then, that we have decided that their work is in no way notable? Gzuckier 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe it is notable, please, create an article about the topic. It is not, however, notable to George W. Bush's life or career. This is a WP:BIO of George W. Bush and this content does not in any way better a reader's understand of Bush. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I enlarged above, I don't think the kind of list of every portrayal of Bush ever that Wikipedia specializes in would be appropriate here, but well summarized NONPOV sentence or two might be useful, then i suppose a link to the inevitable list. Gzuckier 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Since none of the pro-trivia people could be bothered, I started the page that was suggested. I pasted in (and fixed up) all the information that kept being reverted and re-reverted, but it's a very short article, so if anyone would like to keep adding info onto it, please do. Is this conflict resolved, then? --Iriseyes 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't call someone you can't claim they "could not be reached for comment." Some of us spend some of our waking hours offline. Anton Mravcek 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I should be doing right now, I have a calc test in an hour. Thank you for reminding me. --Iriseyes 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Ferrell and Will Forte, and maybe Will Sasso 

message: On True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai, regarding the Japanese in the Second World War, 1941, on History Channel, I heard that some of the first Americans captured were in Dutch East Indies {&/or Malaya | Singapore}, for the Texas Guard {Tejas Guard?}.  I suppose that the Air Guard would have been created a few years later.
The actual river is "Tamarkan".
Japanese for [number] five is "go".
The Japanese pronounced "speed-up" as "speedo".
It is currently on, & from 1100 - 1300, Pacific, 1900 - 2100, zulu time.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedo is just a transliteration of speed. I'm a little confused as to the direction of the comment, though. Dekimasu 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Texas National Guard]], versus [[Texas Air National Guard]] 

message: even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178
:why?
::There is no reason to unlock it, this is the most vandalised article on Wikipedia...Most of the IP edits to this article is vandalism.__Seadog ♪ 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the most vandalised article even when locked. --Majorly (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article should not be unlocked. Each and every time it has been unprotected, it is re-protected within hours. -- AuburnPilottalk 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it locked.  Always.--Loodog 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should get a username and then you won't have to worry about semi-protected articles. Valley2city 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, maybe you shouldn't. According to your user contributions and talk page, you are a repeat offender of vandalism. Valley2city 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is corrected often to point out the complete history of George W. Bush which includes many negative facts, the constant subjective editing to exclude these negative facts is harmful to the entire wikipedia project where only facts should be noted. example, "George W. Bush has presided over the largest debt in american history and knowingly used substantially inaccurate information to invade Iraq resulting in the killing of thousands of American soldiers needlessly. and, yet this information is not properly documented within wikipedias article, thus, the accurate documentation  of George W. Bush is unavailable within wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wen-sar (talk • contribs) 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unlock it 

message: What is going on?  Do we want criticism even included in this article?  I have slowly seen negative material disappear from this article.
Criticism is mentioned in the introduction "he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, [.........]", yet the entire part in the main body of this article on criticism was removed.
If my interpretations are correct then I must call for *'ALL'* criticism to be only referenced in the "see also" section.  Even though to me that goes against npov.  And in fact this is already discouraged in the NPOV article, but arguments that criticism is so large that it needs a separate article, I can understand.
If we are going to separate criticism to a separate fork article then so be it, but then we must move *all* criticism to this article (e.g. Controversial acts, Hurricane Katrina, ...).  No-one can say that one stance of criticism is unworthy of inclusion in the main article.  At this point it is very unorganized, some criticism in the main article some not in the main article.  --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual approach, when a particular subject becomes too long to fit within the main article, is to move the information to a daughter article, but to leave a summary in the main article.  We can't just say "there's been criticism, see the daughter article".  Major points of criticism must be discussed in the article. JamesMLane t c 03:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are we allowing the summary to be removed????  --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if it makes you sick, how about registering and helping out? At the very least, how about pointing to some specifics. -- AuburnPilottalk 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV??? 

message: This section has been here long enough without anybody taking the initiative to work the contents into the article and it has already begun to collect repetitive/useless information. It's time to either move the information into the article or to the talk page per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. -- AuburnPilottalk 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia, revisited

message: A possibly minor point...the introductory paragraph makes no mention of the contested 2000 election, which is in contrast to the "only candidate to win the majority vote in 16 years" bit regarding the 2004 election. If that is notable enough for the introduction, objectively shouldn't the "only candidate since 1888 who won despite losing the popular vote" also be noted there? (This may seem trivial, but my impression on an initial read of this article is that it lacks coherency as a whole, and this is just one example).
Traumerei 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He won the majority vote in the 2004 Election with 50.7% of the vote which qualifies as a majority vote.  Bush however didn't have a majority vote in the 2000 Election.  Bill Clinton won the vote with 49.2% of the vote in 1996 & 43% in 1992 which are not majority votes.  George H. W. Bush won the 1988 election with a majority vote of 53.4% of the vote.  Majority vote in politics means a number greater than 50%. ViriiK 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be made clear; however, I think the fact that he's the first successful candidate not to win the popular vote in 112 years is more significant than the fact that he's the first to win the majority vote in 16. - Che Nuevara 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --- the fact that he got more than 50% and that Clinton didn't is due to the presence of a third candidate in Clinton's races and the absence of any significant third candidate in Bush's; in the current article the majority win is presented as if it means Bush was more popular or more successful than Clinton. Svenonius 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority vote, popular vote 

message: You should change the picture, that one is ruined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sixest (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which picture are you referring to? -- AuburnPilottalk 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalizing 

message: I added the Very Long template to the article. This article IS getting really really long. Infested-jerk 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. With complete respect to those who have dedicated a lot of time to this article, it needs some attention. I came here to get a general overview of George Bush and was greeted with an extremely indepth article on him. Now, I am not suggesting that a lot of detailed information on George Bush isn't good - because it is. However, it might be best to have this article summarise some of the more extensive and less high-profile/high-agenda/important stuff, with links to sub-articles (where such sub-topics can be explained more fully). That way people who want general information can get it and those who want detailed information (perhaps on a detailed subject) can also get it. --Signed by:  Chazz - (responses). @ 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: ... isn't actually a sentence.  "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946), 43rd President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and re-elected as president in the 2004 election."  Do we want some form of "be" verb in there? Ryanluck 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed that - I guess you're right, our articles generally start with a first sentence that is actually a full sentence, so this only probably should also -- Ferkelparade π 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are still some fragments and faulty parallelism in there, I'll fix it now. --Iriseyes 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: His term expires January 2007.  ViriiK 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sentence 

message: There are currently 2 sections in the article titled "Foreign policy", and I think it would be best if one of them would be changed. I noticed this after editing one section and then right after it took me to the other one (I thought I accidently deleted some info). --Ted87 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear combining the two sections would cause more confusion than they do separately. Each section falls under a different term in office, outlining foreign policy for each of the two terms. -- AuburnPilottalk 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not suggesting combining the sections. I’m saying one of them should be changed to a slightly different name so we don’t have 2 sections with the same name. --Ted87 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign policy 

message: Following the discussion I started on wording that assumes the date we are reading the article, here is an example of something that got left in even after the event, making the article on this very prominent subject out-of-date. In November I found an old sentence like "A hearing is scheduled for September 28", and changed it to "A hearing was scheduled for September 28; the outcome was ???.[86]"
I thought that the many vigilant eyes would pick up and fill in the ???. but it is still there. Search the article for "September 26" or "???" to find this. Pol098 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still there. Patstuarttalk|edits 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack, it was given another week: . Well, it looks like it was called unconstitutional, but under appeal . That's the best I can do. I'll try to change it, but I'm fairly sure it's outdated. I remember people on both sides of the aisle got really mad at her because she apparently used bad logic in outlawing it. Patstuarttalk|edits 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I found it, but I don't have time to add it back in: . The decision was stayed, meaning the action can continue until appeal is over; it will "likely" go to the Supreme Court (I think it's already gotten there, perhaps just not decided yet). Patstuarttalk|edits 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 28 hearing 

message: I found a comprehensive, unbiased biography of George W. in a 1999 issue of Rolling Stone .  It's too early to have had a position on Bush's presidency, and yet has lots of details, especially on his oil company ventures and his investments.  Is this useful to anybody who wants to incorporate it into the article here, or just add it as a link? Emiao 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not consider Rolling Stone a relliable source for analyzing a  amjor leader.  It really is just a flashier People magazine.Decato 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Alexander is a notable author who has written biographies of james Dean, Sylvia Plath, J.D. Salinger,  Andy Warhol, John McCain, John Kerry and others. That matters more than where the article appeared.  - F.A.A.F.A. 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would not dismiss popular media so quickly.  Sometimes excellent journalism and significant works of literature appear in unexpected publications.  For example, Shel Silverstein's work appeared in many issues of Playboy and Dr. Suess wrote articles for Vanity Fair and Life.  --ElKevbo 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it's a hugely reputable source, it's still good enough to reference for the article under WP:NOR. So add it if you want to. Walton monarchist89 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful biographical article 

message: I am just starting to review the plethora of Bush articles. Could any of you who are familiar with them tell me if there is any mention of the 'WMD Joke Controversy' from the 2004  Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner?
This one:
:"Family of Slain Soldier Calls Bush WMD Jokes "Disgraceful""
:-snip-
:"But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing."
:"George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country.""
Thanks! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is all unneccessary information for this article, especially at this time, when it's too long. --Iriseyes 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Not because it wasn't notable, but because everything Bush does is notable, so we have to pick and choose. This is a biography. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'WMD Joke Controversy' 

message: We all know Bush is not the best leader, but you don't need to crap on it. It's not a toilet. A lot of people knw it's not really him now either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SBKT (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific complaints? Can't really help out inspecific angry comments. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That is unnecessary 

message: This article is way too long - 106kB. Clearly moving some of the material into other articles is a task which will need to be done vary carefully -  both to maintain an article with NPOV that represents the consensus view on how best to describe Bush, and to avoid being reverted as vandalism! Maybe moving some of the material about the policies of Bush's government; the sections on domestic, economic and foreign policy seem (to me) to be the best targets, and they already direct the reader to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration; maybe an Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration should be added to make Bush - the policies trilogy? Inner Earth 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed a lot of the modern culture references to the newly created fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, yet I hesitate to undertake another project like that at this time. Maybe you could kickstart to information transfer? --Iriseyes 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Just browsing through this article I never seem to read anything that implies GWB ever did anything bad.  I know the goodness / badness of George W. is a touchy subject, and I have my own biases, but I really don't think this article is balanced the way it is.
Case in point:
Bush returned to the oil industry, becoming a senior partner or chief executive officer of several ventures, such as Arbusto Energy ('arbusto' means bush in Spanish), Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy. These ventures suffered from the general decline of oil prices in the 1980s that had affected the industry and the regional economy, but he remained active through mergers, acquisitions and consolidations of his firms.
Which sounds to me like he never did anything wrong, that the businesses suffered soley due to circumstances beyond his control and he acted honorably throughout.  Which might all be true, but I know there's no consensus about that, I don't think there's overwhelming evidence to support that POV, and there's certainly no evidence cited.  On the other hand, the Harken Energy scandal isn't mentioned at all.  If the reason for the failure of Dubya's oil ventures is suggested with no supporting evidence, shouldn't the evidence suggesting an accounting scandal at least be mentioned?
The same goes for his time at the Rangers, which was apparently all lollipops and rainbows.
As another example, everything written about his governership of Texas is prejudicial: phrases like "set higher standards for schools" sound like facts but in fact give the reader no information and are the kind of thing you hear in campaign ads.  Meanwhile, the only bad move he (might have) made is to let himself be criticized for allegedly using controversial methods to disparage Richards  (my emphasis.)  Why are three separate words needed in the same sentence to make the point that not everyone agrees that his methods were bad?
I'd keep looking for more examples, but my biases are giving me a headache.
Someone went through and deleted everything negative and rephrased everything with euphamistic language straight out of the whitehouse playbook... but it's being slowly fixed now to be more balanced... and not the kind of balance Fox News advertises.
--66.74.223.57 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds more like critical thinking than bias to me.  You bring up some good points.  I especially like the "criticized / allegedly / controversial" quote - that cracked me up :).  I know editing the article on Bush is a daunting task, but I think you have some valuable input.  Thanks for posting! G Rose 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Create an account and be bold. The points you raise are important, and I think you're the best one to correct them. You have my support, at least in these two cases. yandman 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep biases out of wikipedia, yes it is important to include critisism in an article but keep them confined to a critisism section. This is a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia not a political outlet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.111.43 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush never does anything wrong 

message: Someone put Bush as monkeys.... can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain bingo (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkies... 

message: Um, I'm not the biggest Bush supporter but that's kinda unprofessional, guys.
Could you remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.166.226.42 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that's more clever than most vandalism on this page, it's quite common. It was soon reverted. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture of the Bush family is currently a picture of a bunch of monkeys. 

message: That category has other well known drunk drivers in it such as Joan Kennedy and Mel Gibson.  George W. Bush belongs there also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.125.218 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Drunk driving should be added 

message: Doesn't the Spanish "arbusto" translate to the English "shrub"? Hence, many of George W. Bush's critics refer to him as "Shrub."
Herb Evans 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as far as I know, it translates to Bush...as in George W. Bush. - AuburnPilottalk 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbusto translated 

message: This article contains the following sentence: "Bush enjoyed strong support among Americans holding conservative and pro-military views."
This is absurd. Every Democrat I know is "pro-military." However, we want the troops brought home, instead of being embroiled in a senseless conflict. Bush lied to the nation about why we needed to invade Iraq---and yet his followers are described as "pro-military." The fact is, there are many "pro-military" people out there (including a growing number of soldiers) who despise Bush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page should be used to discuss suggestions and improvements to the article.  With all due respect, your personal observations of who likes or despises Bush are irrelevant here.  If you have a reliable source you'd like to use in changing the sentence, please do so, and cite your source properly. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does seem to be a legitimate contention; what is a "pro-military" view? There are indeed things that Bush has endorsed which could be considered rather unsupportive of the military, and there are very many people who consider themselves supportive of the military who oppose these things. Then, of course, there are many people who feel the exact opposite way. This sentence seems to imply that there is a direct correlation with identification as "pro-military" and support of Bush. - Che Nuevara 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where he's coming from, but I think he's missing the point. The phrasing was not meant to say "Democrats are anti-military". The phrasing was meant to say that the type that is most pro-military is most likely to favor Bush. And I can't quote anything right now to support that, but I've seen it many times over, from the late-cast military votes helping Bush in the 2000 election, to his welcome enthusiastic welcome after the election, to the conventional wisdom that the military supports conservatives (both in this society and others, e.g., Franco). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what the citation is meant to mean, but it's rather misleading. I mean, to say "pro-military" implies that there is an "anti-military". - Che Nuevara 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. It just means the crowd that heavily favors things of the military. If you can come up with better wording that's just as accurate, by all means do. But that might be rather difficult. -Patstuarttalk|edits 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but "pro-military", to me, as someone who is mortified by Bush but has many friends and relatives in military service, smacks of "supporting the troops" rhetoric, which is, quite frankly, all crap. - Che Nuevara 07:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it should be mentioned somehow, however it's said, although military support for Bush has wained considerably since his inauguration. It doesn't look at all like rhetoric to me, it looks like a well meant statement, that, when understood, is quite accurate. This is nothing worse than is in the newspapers every day, mostly because it's hard to find another way to say it. -Patstuarttalk|edits 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to admit that perhaps it is indeed my personal bias in this matter -- my vehement dislike for Bush discourages me from making significant edits to this article in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But it's my experience that the term "pro" (and by correlation the term "anti"), particularly when applied to groups of people, seems to me to be deceptively and unnecessarily divisive. I definitely would find it appropriate to mention that among military servicepeople he enjoys (enjoyed?) widespread support, as that is a pretty clearly objective fact. I'm just wary of "pro-military" as a rather subjective group. - Che Nuevara 08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that doesn't sound too bad. The only problem I have now, though, is that the crowd that's, um, usually all about military stuff, even if it's not in the military, is pro-Bush as well. -Patstuarttalk|edits 08:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see what you're saying (without actually saying it?). Something akin to "among military servicepeople and voters who support a military agenda"? - Che Nuevara 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *ding* - correct. Patstuarttalk|edits 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's actually a more accurate and appropriate term. How do you feel about switching that wording in for "pro-military"? - Che Nuevara 03:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you think you can make it sound right. To be honest, no matter how you say it, it will probably come out clumsy, though, "among those especially supportive of the military agenda". Patstuarttalk|edits 03:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it probably won't sound great, but I think it's legitimate to sacrifice a little bit of that for accuracy. - Che 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In the absence of some particular piece of verifiable evidence -- for example a poll providing a very specific wording to measure who the "pro-military" electorate is -- it didn't belong in a WP article.   The prior wording was every bit as vague as saying, "GWB was favored by ignorant people" or "moral people" or whatever.   Present wording is much better, but still lacks citations.  - PhilipR 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine that some published exit polling stats from 2004 would suffice. Any idea where to get them? - Che Nuevara 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro-Military" reference 

message: I can't see how this edit made by Dicklyon has any place in the article. Why should we care about Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton's story about shooting frogs? I can't see how this warrants inclusion in GWB's bio. I reverted it, but the edit was reinserted with an edit summary saying it is "exculpatory, as explanation for some ways of thinking" . I won't revert again for now, but I don't think this should be included. AuburnPilottalk 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The implicit assertion that shooting frogs is somehow linked to his Middle East invasions is kind of silly. - Che Nuevara 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, three.  I can understand why it might be interesting but it appears to need a lot more context.  And I don't think it's important enough, even with that context, to be included in this particular (very long) article.  I also am a bit wary of including a psychological analysis written by newspaper author.  If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized the article, please let me know!  --ElKevbo 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know, Bush doesn't advocate putting explosives in juvenile offenders or shooting them. - Che Nuevara 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.  Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll move it to the "early life" article that's a lot shorter. Dicklyon 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry - I'm really not trying to be obtuse!  But I still don't understand how this one speculative article by one author, even if it is in the NYT, is noteable and worth including in this very long (and ever-growing) article.  --ElKevbo 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but also don't understand how it warrants inclusion in the separate Early life of George W. Bush  article either. Maybe I'm missing something, but the speculation of one person doesn't seem enough to me. Even if it is in the NYT. AuburnPilottalk 03:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frogs

message: Did anyone happen to notice the Merriam-Webster words of the year for 2006 ?  They all seem to be relevant to Bush, in varying degrees (OK, google is a stretch unless you count his googlebombing, but the other nine are pretty relevant).  Should something be said? Dicklyon 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Words of the Year

message: The opening paragraph is very harsh on him. Whether you like him or not the lead paragraph is no place for irrelevant details like a 'a self declared war president'. The lead should only include general info, there is plenty of room to include all sorts of interesting stuff and even trivia further down. Please can the native editors clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrummerThanThou (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:LEAD

message: Someone has written a ridiculous paragraph about George W. Bush at the beginning of the article.  To the best of my knowledge, though, the rest is fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.7.3 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately, that's more common that I'd like to admit. It's usually removed within a minute or two at most, though. -Patstuarttalk|edits 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS PAGE HAS BEEN VANDALIZED!