Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 47

message: In the domestic policies section, it is mentioned that using existing stem cell lines is "obviating the need to destroy embryos." This wording should be changed, because it implies something that is false. Existing stem cells lines are outdated and are very limited in their potential for research. Thus, they only "obviate" the need to destroy embryos in a legal sense. In practical science, new stem cells are created and destroyed without federal support because new cells are needed for sufficient progress to be made. 70.105.49.78 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't see any citation after the paragraph in question, meaning that too must be POV and original research by your definition.  And I don't recall ever hearing any expert claim it has obviated the need to destroy embryos.  I agree that the wording needs to be changed, at least so it doesn't state it in a matter-of-fact manner. i.e. "proponents claim it will obviate the need to destroy embryos" mbc362 11:18, 4 October 2006
I made some changes to the stem cell paragraph.  The opening claim of a “total ban” on research during “the latter years of the Clinton administration,” was misleading, not to say false.  A rider on legislation signed in 1995 by President Clinton, the Dickey Amendment prohibited federal funding of any research that involved the creation or destruction of human embryos.  Shortly after Dr. James A. Thompson first isolated human ES cells in 1998, the National Institutes of Health obtained legal counsel from the Department of Health and Human Services that said ES research was legal so long as the ES cells were derived using private funds.  On Aug. 25, 2000 with President Clinton’s full support, NIH released guidelines for federal funding of ES research and opened the door for the first ES research grant applications.AAAS policy brief.  The “executive order” referred to in the entry did not “lift a ban”; what President Bush did on Aug. 9, 2001 was backpedal slightly on his intial, strongly oppositional statements about ES research.  He announced that he would allow federally funded research to go forward, provided that the only cells used were from existing cell lines.  I also revised the section to give a more accurate portrayal of the President’s policy on stem cell research, as well as an indication of the surrounding controversy.  The domestic ES research debate has two sides: those who want to expand research, and those who want to restrict it.  It is simply deceptive for WP to portray President Bush as motivated to remove Clinton-era restrictions on the research, and it seems to me that only through willful omission of information can we discuss the issue as though it has not all along been characterized by passionate opposition and debate.  Bottom line is that the significance of President Bush’s role in the ES cell struggle is to stay true to his staunchly pro-life philosophy, and in general this means opposing expansion of research. Cyrusc 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stem Cell Issue

message: The intro is correct in saying that he is not George Bush, Jr., but gives an incorrect reason.  The 41st President, alhough named in full (for his grandfather) George Herbert Walker Bush, he has always used the name "George Bush."   When he became president, critics fell into the habit of using all of his names, perhaps to exploit the common belief that more than three names suggests aloof aristocracy.  Barbara Bush once objected to this. noting tartly "He  has only two initials on his briefcase."  I'm too new to be allowed to edit this article, but I suggest it would be more accurate if "Since his father goes by George H. W. Bush, this is not applicable" read "Since his father's full name is George Herbert Walker Bush, this is incorrect."   I license this suggestion to any empowered editor who thinks it an improvement.   Samhook 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the reason, I don't think this information necessarily belongs in the (already too long) introduction.  I have moved it to "Early life."  --ElKevbo 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, when the term "Junior" is used it is between a father and son with identical names - These two have different full names. I believe that if the son's name was George Herbert Walker Bush, he would be called George Herbert Walker Bush, Jr. (or simply George H.W. Bush, Jr.) The Incredible Moo 09:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: He is not George Walker Bush II for the same reason he is not George Walker Bush, Jr: he does not have the same name as his father. As for "Pope John Junior," I'll let someone else explain that one to you. PacificBoy 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicability of "George Bush, Jr.

message: There was a Newsweek cover in 2003 "Bush and God", and in 2005 there was this story of Bush claiming that he was on a mission by God to fight terrorists in Afghanistan and end tyranny in Iraq. Anyway GWB did use religion to an extraordinary degree in his political carreer. Shouldn't there be a section in the article discussing this? Dianelos 23:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Studies have shown that Bill Clinton invoked God and Jesus far more often during his presidency than Bush has. Do you really want to go there? And did you actually read the article you linked? "The White House dismissed as “absurd” the remarks attributed to Bush..."--Aaron 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaron, would you mind citing your source(s) for that first statement? Duke53 | Talk 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to a copy of an article written by Dr. Paul Kengor, Ph.D.; it's not the original study, but an article he wrote about the study, reproduced on a site I haven't heard of before. I've seen others, but this study is the one that I remember reading previously (not this article; the actual study.....I know it's available online somewhere). If somebody happens to find the actual study, link it here. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I too think that Bill Clinton was a religious person and that his faith played a role in his policies (maybe to try to help the downtrodden?), and I think that WP's page on Clinton's should discuss this. As for the article I linked above of course the White House spokesman would try to dismiss this particular piece of information (it was a private conversation and it makes GWB appear as a religious nutcase). Still, the story has the ring of truth in it. Why should the alleged witness of Bush's words, Nabil Shaath, claim Bush told him these things if it weren't true? Also observe that Shaath himself later tried to soften the story's impact. Finally according to this BBC story Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, was also present in that meeting and confirmed part of Shaath’s words. Now it seems that later both men understood this was working against their cause and tried some damage control; see here. Anyway, I really think that GWB's faith helps explain a lot of his policies and general stance - as well as his political success - and that a section discussing these issues would improve the article's quality, but if this article's editors think that for some reason these issues are not noteworthy I won’t press the matter. This was just a suggestion. Dianelos 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush and God

message: Okay, call me a malcontent, but all the pictures of the president are, well, happy pictures of the president, doing happy things, looking presidential, all very posed and whatnot ("the President visits Mexico, with other very pale foreigners ...").  there's the one nasty shot of a foreign newspaper taking a swipe at him, but that's about it.  would it be asking too much to have some, I dunno, Americans who don't look too happy interacting with their president?  I might make him look more like the leader of an (actual, functioning) democracy, and less like Big Brother.  Hail Oceania!  If I found one, might I include it without too much backlash? Blondlieut 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  I think the most important thing would be to make sure the photos are appropriate for both the article and the section in which they are placed.  But the general objection you have raised and the proposed solution both make sense to me.  Go for it!  --ElKevbo 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how many pictures like that do we have on the Bill Clinton page? Shouldn't we be more worried about the relevance and informational value of pictures than about how positive or negative they are? -Silence 01:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me, Bill Clinton's page could use some work in the picture area. As far as this page, I don't see any problem with Blondlieut's suggestion. Like ElKevbo said, so long as they are appropriate for the article and section (not an image of Bush yelling at a reporting in the "early life" section or a picture of him as a child in the domestic policy section), a few pictures that aren't posed would be great; happy or otherwise. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Silence, I would invite you to re-read what I wrote.  I was looking for pictures regarding Bush's presidency (and folks' reaction to him and his policies) that would suggest that the United States is a functioning democracy.  Do you consider that "positive" or "negative"?  I would hope that you would consider that positive, regardless of your views of George W. Bush.  Blondlieut 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If I may be so bold: couldn't a photo of Bush sitting in the primary school after he's been told about the Twin Towers being attacked be put somewhere? It represents for so many people the kind of reaction and concern that many people associate with the American President.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.217.24 (talk • contribs) 15:23, November 14, 2006
P.S. Yes, they're mostly happy, grining pictures of Old Bill on the Clinton page.  If you find any pictures of folks assembling hither and yon calling for his impeachment, I think you should post those.  As I recall, living in Washington, D.C., the riot police were just out in full force for that, bitter Americans by the hundreds of thousands marching on the White House.  It really was a sight to see!  Or maybe I'm being delusional.  Or sarcastic.  You choose. Blondlieut 02:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Where in the article would this pic go? It's a great image, quality and content wise, but I'm not sure I see where you want it to go...War section? Foreign Policy? Somewhere else? I'm going to insert it and preview a few placements without saving it so I can get some ideas. (oh and I shrunk the image; i know you worked hard to get it to a perfect size but it really was taking up a lot of space on this page; hope you don't mind. ;-)) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 08:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The image here has nothing to do with the President...maybe in anti war protesting articles or something like that, but it's not relative to this article.--MONGO 08:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Other then a mention of Bush the photo has little to do with him, it's not even at a location that he was scheduled to appear at (ie like protesters that show up at his public speaks). Now that photo might be good for the public perception article, but it has no place in this article. PPGMD 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No I meant the Public Perception sub-article, unless the picture has or was likely to have Bush in it, it really has little place in this article. PPGMD 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree completely with your initial thought of pictures that aren't so stiff, but being Bush's bio, I think he should atleast be in the photo...or somewhere nearby. Did you find any candids of him? Maybe interacting with the people? (Does he do that?). Something less formal, but still focusing on Bush is what I imagined. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well this photo features him, kind of www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/150905toiletbreak.htm]. Unfortunately we can't use it as it'll have to be fair use but we don't like fair use when we have other images unless there is a compelling reason (well okay I know that's not the only reason we can't use it, but anyway...) Nil Einne 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It may not be phrased in precisely the right or best manner but the idea that his branch of service should be identified is very important.  Simply titling it as "Lieutenant George W. Bush" is insufficient as all branches of the US Armed Forces have the rank or "Lieutenant."  I'll go even further and state that the caption needs to be made more specific - is he a 1st Lieutenant or a 2nd Lieutenant in this photo?  --ElKevbo 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: This page should be permanantly be locked... There Have Been Alot Of Things Going On And Will Cause Petty Vandalism All Over The Place.
Offensiveandconfusing 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  :P 

message: The statement "Bush is the descendant of English settlers from Somerset in the West Country of England. His family moved to Texas when he was two years old." is confusing - it makes it sound like Bush was born in England and then moved to the US. I know this is probably minor but I think it should at least be rephrased if not excluded altogether, since the article is about GWB *WHILE* he existed, not before! ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to say: I agree with Bad here. And removing such phrases frees up room for more substantial text.Benzocane 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the beginning of the very sentence, it notes his birthplace is Connecticut.  Kasreyn 06:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bad as well. I've rewritten it as Bush is the eldest son of George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara Bush.  Bush's family are descended from English settlers from Somerset in the West Country of England. His family moved to Texas from Conneticut when he was two years old. Less confusing, I thought. Walton monarchist89 09:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing 

message: Just wondering why the opening paragraph is so long. I enjoyed the format of the Bill_Clinton and George_H._W._Bush articles much more than this format. There seems to be too much information.  I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with this approach on its face -- after all Ronald_Reagan, Jimmy_Carter and Gerald_R._Ford all have long introduction paragraphs as well.  I just think its odd that I read the opening paragraph, then read all the same information again in each section.  I'm just wondering what everyone else thought.  Thanks, -- 131.107.0.73 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but the trouble with a controversial article like this is that if you take anything out, however minor, people start quibbling and accuse you of pushing your own POV. If you examine the history of this talk page - which would probably by now fill a fair-sized library - you'll see how difficult it is to get any kind of consensus on any edit. Not to mention, there's constant vandalism by anti-Bush hooligans who like to add obscene comments. Sad, but it's one of the intrinsic drawbacks of Wikipedia. Walton monarchist89 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Hello, I am looking for informations on GW Bush s campain in either 2000 or in 2004...i am trying to analize the campaign from an advertising point of view...
Thank you for you help...if you could send me a mail with some links it would be great...
ionescu.t.tim@gmail.com
thank s again,
tim
:Better yet post it right here for all to see. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush 2004 or 2000 campaign 

message: I removed the link to the video of Bush giving the "One finger victory salute". It was not mentioned in the body of the page and since it was not mentioned as some sort of scandal, I felt it was superfluous to the page in general.
Davemo 04:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be removed since it doesn't benefit the article in any way. This was discussed once  before very briefly.  AuburnPilotTalk 05:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's an angry man. Stop trying to push your POV. The public will know eventually... 128.62.103.232 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm convinced. AuburnPilotTalk 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: As of May 24, 2006, an average of major polls indicated that Bush's approval rating stood at 36.8%. As of 30 August 2006 his rating was 38.8%. On 9 September it was 40.0% and on 19 September 2006 it was 41.0%. On 27 September it had grown again, and was 42.0%.
Is it really necessary, or even appropriate, to update Bush's standing in the polls each week? Seems like overkill. How about simply stating that the polls show an upswing? AuburnPilotTalk 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but now they have dropped!Edison 04:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and public perception

message: Maybe a reference should be made to the rumor that he is illiterate. One reference is Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, which provides evidence for his accusation of him being illiterate, including the "hungry caterpillar" incident. PureLegend 19:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedias are for verifiable fact; not rumors. AuburnPilotTalk 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Michael Moore is hardly a reliable source. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illiterate?

message: Number 1
Number 2
Sorry, I don't have the time to edit this, but I thought it deserves being fixed. Mozzie 06:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are listed under the according two terms of GWB, so it appears to make sense. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has a section for each term, it needs two FP sections, I think. Benzocane 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I see that may need changing is the word policy/policies. It seems the first term uses policies (plural) for Domestic, Foreign, and Economic while the second term uses Policy (singular). Unifomity is nice. AuburnPilotTalk 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out, folks, and particularly AuburnPilot for clarifiying the issue.  I standardized all sections to "...Policy" (since what we're talking about is "policy" in the sense of a  unified approach to all domestic or all foreign affairs).  I also shrank some of the second-term headers to conform to the first-term style precedent.  Cyrusc 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the article really need two foreign policy sections?

message: I am going to remove "successful" from the line "Following the successful overthrow of the Taliban" (in First term/foreign policy/wars subsection).  "Overthrow of the Taliban" is npov and factual.  "Successful" strikes me as misleading, given that the number of foreign troops in Afghanistan has more than tripled since 2003, and that NATO is calling for increased int'l participation in the face of the region's ongoing violence. Cyrusc 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the edit. Even without your explanation, generally, I don't like the use of words like "succesful" in articles.  Let historians decide the success of matters, not Wiki editors. Ramsquire 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see that.  Any sourced paragraph you have about that should go into the respective articles about that conflict.  Again, let history decide what this President's defining moment is, not Wiki editors. Ramsquire 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Ramsquire that the bulk of the information should go into the articles specific to the questions in conflict, but it seems clear that there is currently an inequality in this article: major issues like Katrina have a subsection while the war in Afghanistan receives very little text. What about dividing the 'wars' section into subsections--this would both give the opportunity for a brief encapuslation of the conflicts in question (and links to the main entries) and increase readability. What do others think?Benzocane 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my support. Be bold. Ramsquire 21:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with Ramsquire and others--I've gone ahead and given Afghanistan its own section, though I made it as concise as possible.  In order to accommodate the change, I made "wars" a separate heading from "foreign policy."  Does that work for everyone? Cyrusc 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's exactly what we needed.Benzocane 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
npov
 Afghanistan

message: "Iraqi elections were held in January and December 2005, as well as in a referendum to approve a constitution. Initial media reports of high voter turnout appear to have overestimated actual turnoutm." Little error there. Figured I'd point it out. New014 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Term - Foreign Policy 

message: shouldn't there be a section on his unprecedented use of signing statements?
he has issued i think more signing statements than all past presidents combined.
(or something like that).
it's pretty signifigant but it's not in this article nor in  the domestic policy
article.  63.246.176.93 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  signing statements? 

message: Oct. 20: President Bush acknowledges that "staying the course" in Iraq is not working and says he will consider a possible change in tactics in the war. (source: NBC) Shall we include this? Or include this in the Iraq War? 71.236.225.50 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This relates naturally to the Iraq War FIRST and to Pres. Bush SECOND. Only notable consequences of the statement and only those that are related specifically to Pres. Bush AND that are verifiable should make it into this article.--Gkklein 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Picaroon9288 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush considers changing tactics in Iraq 

message: Some people have tried to insert the Tet Offensive comment by President Bush.  While it may be some what of an accurate comparison of Tet to Iraq.  It actually shows that President Bush knows history.  The Tet Offensive was a propaganda victory for the Vietcongs, not a military victory.  And it's showing to be the same case in Iraq today where the media has been playing the "Insurgency are winning in Iraq".  However that's not the case.  There are areas in Southern Iraq and Northern Iraq that are quiet.  The province where the media focuses on is the Al Anbar Province & Baghdad which is quite not so peaceful compare to the rest of Iraq.  So I suggest people don't overdo on the Tet Offensive comment by President Bush.  ViriiK 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Alberto Fernandez does not belong in there since it's not his biography but rather President Bush.  You're just adding it there because it attack Bush's commitment to Iraq thus can be viewed as bias.  Casualties in regard to Vietnam and Iraq are still not quite comparable.  The order of half a million troops came before Tet Offensive.  Whereas casualties skyrocketed as the US Operation became more and more expanded in Vietnam while still being restricted by the Johnson Administration's policy of intervention into the North.  At this rate in Iraq, casualties would go as high as 7,000 KIA in the same number of months (13 years).  The Tet Offensive however had 4,324 KIA vs the Vietcong's 50,000 plus in a single offensive.  ViriiK 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tet Offensive comment 

message: As far as I know, Bush has not withdrawn from the treaty (and this is supported by the Kyoto article) Nil Einne 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The treaty was never ratified by Congress although Clinton may have signed it.  Especially when they demanded timetables and total participation with a vote of 95-0 in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution  ViriiK 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyoto 

message: the supporting documentation for his guard service...  is wholely one sided...  and it doesn't bother to address, for instance, the details that are in conflict, instead, it implies that the issue is that he didn't rack up enough flight hours, then, mindblowingly, it proves something...  that the opposition doesn't contest, while ignoring just about every detail that is actually controversial.  amazingly, it notes, that for the first 80 weeks, when he was doing full time flight training, he had flight hours in spec with someone... and this'll shock the stuffing out of the democratic attack machine...  that doesn't mention this, who was training full time to become a national guard pilot...  who'd a thought, when democrats, and republicans alike agreed that his training was par for the course, that his training, was par for the course.  and my point is, that the quality of the linked article, is such, that every "revelation" that the author "reveals" is just as unexpected, in that it doesn't discuss the missing documents.
:What missing documents?  If you're refering to the Killian Documents, it was a fake.  ViriiK 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  guard service footnote questionable 

message: This is exactly why this page is being disabled. People just keep posting their completly biased opinions. Whether it's for or against Bush, it's just as bad as advirtising. --Cronic liar 22:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific examples from the article that we can address/rewrite, or are you referring to this talk page? Or something else? AuburnPilotTalk 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it would be good if examples could be cited, then I can start to understand what he is saying. --SunStar Net 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was referring to the vandalism on the 25th where somone deleted the whole page and replaced it with a rant about bush destroying the World Trade Center. I was going to attempt to correct it myself, but I kept losing connection, so uhh congrats whoever did correct it.Eno-Etile 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is why 

message: I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in the main Clinton article. By contrast, this main article for Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact that Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 30, 2006
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --ElKevbo 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er well, he's an anon and this page is semiprotected... Nil Einne 11:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden 

message: This new trivia section is a bit worrisome. While WP:NOT doesn't say much, or anything actually, about trivia, these sections tend to be a breading ground for useless information. WP:TRIVIA is neither a guideline nor policy, but it has some good points. If the section stays, it needs to be carefully scrutinized. I like the idea given in the guideline avoid trivia sections in articles. It states that such sections should not necessarily be removed on sight, but used as a temporary (not permanent) list of information that should be worked into the article. It goes on to say that once the information is included in the article, and the list is empty, the section should be removed. Any thoughts? AuburnPilottalk 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more and suggest that we remove it. It's far from 'encyclopedic' and it also takes up valuable space.Benzocane 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: The photograph of Bush talking to the vp from Air Force One on 9/11 is, in my opinion, an excellent photograph. But it doesn't have anything to do with economic policy. Perhaps a more relevant one could be used instead?  134.10.40.183 (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Picture for Economic Policy

message: I'd like to dispute the opening paragraph that he is the first president to win a majority in the election in 16 years.  That is a highly subjective comment.  Newsmax, cited as source, is biased and not a reliable source.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.216.161 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to dispute it, but Dubya, is the first President since '88 to get 51% of the vote.  In 92 Clinton got 43, in 96 he got 48 or 49, and in 2000, Bush obviously didn't get that majority.  Sorry you don't like the cite, but the info is accurate. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can understand requesting an alternative or additional source but I don't quite understand how you can label that claim "subjective."  It's mathematics - either he won over half or he didn't.  --ElKevbo 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's not much to dispute here. As Ramsquire pointed out, the numbers show he's the first to win a majority since '88. -- AuburnPilottalk 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Was this FA nomination made in good faith?  The user that made the nomination doesn't appear to have followed very good form (the link to the FAC discussion goes to an old discussion) and several other FAC nominations made by the user appear to have been either in bad faith or simply poor form.  Can someone more familiar with the FAC process please look into this?  Thanks!  --ElKevbo 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that it is actually nominated. I think the person who placed the Featured article template at the top of this page simply placed the incorrect template. It should be >FACfailed> instead. I couldn't find it listed on the candidate page so I'm going to swap out the template on this page for the failed one. -- AuburnPilottalk 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just noticed the FAC template is actually the small talk page version....I really don't think the small ones are effective. I hope that doesnt become standard. -- AuburnPilottalk 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like them. Things that aren't going to change, and are not that big of a deal like FACfailed templates, former Peer Review, and task force template should be the small version IMO. To-do lists, and other big notices should be the full size. By doing that and making two columns of the small ones we could cut down the size quite a bit. PPGMD 02:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?

message: In the introductory statements, shouldn't different wording be used to reflect the voting scandals that occured during both elections, as well as the supreme court's involvement and voting machine problems? It just seems too straight-forward to say 'elected' like any other election. Tyciol 20:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: George Bush won the electoral college in both elections, meaning he was elected just like any other election. The scandals are noted in necessary sections and subsequent articles and need not be addressed in the introduction. Doing so would be giving undue weight to the alternate POV.  -- AuburnPilottalk 21:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology to address 1st and 2nd elections

message: Where are the talk archives, were these pages just wiped or something? Anyway, I think it's time to archive a couple more to minimize the size of this page. Tyciol 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find archives of the talk pages from the previous 3-4 years within the Archive box at the top of this page. I've only done one archive on an article talk page so I'll leave the archiving up to somebody else, if necessary. -- AuburnPilottalk 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Ok, is everyone else seeing the huge gap of space at the beginning of the article or is Firefox just screwing with me? -- AuburnPilottalk 23:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it too, in both Firefox and Safari, and haven't been able to make it go away (yet) by experimentally deleting stuff at the top--but then the preview function messes with that space so it may not give accurate results.  (I'm using a different skin from you too--Classic.)  Not sure what's up.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's an Infobox_President thing.  There's a note at Template_talk:Infobox_President from a user who has noticed this problem.  If I understand his or her note correctly, he or she has caused the problem by attempting to clean up the template.  --ElKevbo 23:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, thanks:  I just discovered the same thing by copying the whole to my user space and trying out various deletions.  Guess we have to fix IBP.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, perfect. At least we've figured out the problem. Next step, fixing it. That, and speedy deleting my image, which I'll do now. Thanks for the quick response! -- AuburnPilottalk 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large gap of space 

message: This was inserted on October 27 2006 but I do not see the point why it needs to be there for someone that is already deceased for a century & half and not well known.  He's only significant for being one of the first black settlers in the Oregon Country.  Is he in our history books when we go to school reviewing American History?  Most likely not.  But George W. Bush will be and plays a huge role in American History compared to someone on a small feat for the first time.  ViriiK 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Washington Bush]] 

message: Just a thought, but shouldn't there be a section for things we know about what sort of man he is? His personality, interests and the like. And, of course, his reputation on the whole and how satire attacks him. Like I say, just a thought. The Queen has it. Michaelritchie200 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personality

message: Just out of curiosity, has this article been completely unprotected at all in the past 6 years? aido2002 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been protected and unprotected more then 500 times in the past two years. I hope this anwsers your question. --I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was curious of that myself. I have NEVER seen it unprotected. But I'll take your word on it. :) Dark jedi requiem 08:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlocked? 

message: We have an obligation to tell the truth on Wikipedia.  George W. Bush's allegiance belongs to a satanic society called Skull and Bones.  Sure he belongs to the United Methodist Church for PR reasons, but that isn't where his true allegiance lies.  I am keeping Religion = Skull and Bones in the infobox because it is more true and correct and I don't appreciate the reverts.
ElijahFalling 07:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the change.  I have of course reinstated the correct religion. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't do this.  WP:3RR will only apply to you; anyone who reverts you is removing vandalism.  I have refrained from posting vandalism warnings to your page so far; if you insist on going down this road, you're going to earn yourself a block. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's 3 reverts. ElijahFalling, this is considered vandalism, as you are not arguing for your changes on the discussion page or citing a source for your (obviously contested) edit. Feeeshboy 07:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I did argue for my changes as seen above.  Jim Douglass also broke the 3 revert rule, so I notified him on his talk page.  He removed it, which is vandalism.  ElijahFalling 07:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reverting obvious vandalism is allowed under 3RR.  What Jim did is fine.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indefinitely blocked for trolling. Alphachimp 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Clearly a single purpose account.  Probably a sock, does anyone recognise the Fist?  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox - Religion 

message: In the infobox, it says "Born: 6 July, 1946 (age 60)". Does this mean he was 60 when he was born? I've deleted the age to stop any confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdlw93 (talk • contribs) .
:I just really don't think anybody was confused into thinking it meant he was 60 when he was born. Especially considering age is the number of years since birth. I have reinstated the age. -- AuburnPilottalk 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have removed it again. We need to avoid statements that date quickly, and one year is pretty quick. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 10:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't it set the age automatically? I thought that was the whole point of the template... yandman 10:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I surrender! --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox- date of birth 

message: Bolton, Hadley and Portman? members of the Cabinet?
I thought the Cabinet members were just the Vice President & Department Heads? GoodDay 21:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed Bolton, Hadley & Portman from Cabinet section. Reason; look at other US President's cabinets. GoodDay 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't he going to serve until the new secretary is confirmed? We should wait until that time to change it. 2nd Piston Honda 10:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet

message: I'm sure it has been discused here anyway, but why isn't there mention of his suspected drug use when younger?  If there is a fear of libel laws, then certainly it is appropriate to mention the widespread speculation in the media and population 67.175.167.58 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole paragraph about it in the "early life" section. yandman 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drug Use?

message: Maybe it's just because of my own political views, but I think that using Bush's thumping quote at the end of the opening paragraphs reflects a bit of bias and disrespect... perhaps the results of the recent elections could be summarized a bit more eloquently? I just wanted to see if anyone else agrees with me before changing it.Chuckos 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice thought.  applies here, as you seem quite knowledgable in the appropriate wording to replace it with. Have fun. :-) --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening