Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17

message: I added some information about Bush's inaugural address. Please check it out --Ben 20:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted after three weeks, as it was a shameless and fraudulent mangling of Bush's words. Gazpacho 06:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Inaugural and Foreign Policy

message: How can something be considered NPOV if it sounds like a press release from Karl Rove himself? Anything that doesn't pass muster with the Wikihawks who watch this article 24/7 disappears almost instantly.
Thats a good term, wikihawks, I like that. What specifically do you see as a problem. I would prefer a shorter intro, i.e. moving the biographical information from the intro to the biography section. Mir 07:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: It's been seven days since my proposal to protect this page.  I didn't think the protection would actually last that long.  :)  Now, shall we unprotect the page, or do you want it to remain protected indefinitely? --Modemac 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this page wasn't protected because of controversial material; it was protected because of stupid vandalism -- ranging in the hundreds of edits per day. --Modemac 11:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I know you're joking, but I rather dislike seeing "anti-Bush bigot", as it seems to imply being anti-Bush is a form of bigotry rather than sanity ;-) Sanity is no excuse for vandalism though.Wolfman 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, Wolfman ;-), your analysis is paranoic. The statement meant that the page would be for those bigots that happen to be anti-Bush, but it does not imply that all anti-Bush people must necessarily be bigots. :-)  --Lumidek 02:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which a person is most commonly known.  That's why Clinton's article is at Bill Clinton.  In fact, if you look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), putting Clinton's article there instead of at William Jefferson Clinton is one of the examples given. JamesMLane 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Does this apply to the 2000 elections?  Anyway, the popular vote is just trivia; it's of no legal significance and questionable significance of any kind. VeryVerily 06:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should say that the 2000 results were significant because they led to all the controversy of the counting and legal challenges, causing the result of the election to be in doubt until the Supreme Court ruled PaulHammond 09:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect page after seven days 

message: George W. Bush's predessor was William Jefferson Clinton, 'Bill' Clinton is a nickname.  Clinton's full legal name should be used.
Revmachine21 03:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which a person is most commonly known.  That's why Clinton's article is at Bill Clinton.  In fact, if you look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), putting Clinton's article there instead of at William Jefferson Clinton is one of the examples given. JamesMLane 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Does this apply to the 2000 elections?  Anyway, the popular vote is just trivia; it's of no legal significance and questionable significance of any kind. VeryVerily 06:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should say that the 2000 results were significant because they led to all the controversy of the counting and legal challenges, causing the result of the election to be in doubt until the Supreme Court ruled PaulHammond 09:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another factual error

message: I have been keeping up on the $388 billion spending bill that has been shuffled around in congress over the past week in the article George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States. However the section is getting to be less and less about Bush. Does anyone know the actual name of that bill is or if there is already an article on wikipedia about it so I can move the information out of that article and to some where more relevent? I've placed this information in Talk:2004 congressional spending bill for the time being.--The_stuart 18:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  spending bill 

message: I'm uncomfortable with leaving this article locked for too long, so it's open for editing again. The three revert rule will soon be in effect so play nice everyone. Gamaliel 21:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  unprotected 

message: This is an insignificant event that should not be included in the article.  We are compounding the error by including the speculation about Bush's motives in the article, and casting innuendo because the questionaire and the attorney did not disclose Bush's past DUI issue.  The innuendo is unjustified, since the attorney worked out a get the govenor excused from Jury duty for a conflict of interest, there is no indication that anything proceeded to the point where there would have been a duty for the attorney to disclose this, if he even knew about it.  There is a statement by Bush spokesman that Bush did not fill out the questionaire, a Bush aide did and also left a lot of innocous things blank that he had no personal knowledge of, so focusing on this one non-disclosure is also speculation.  In addition, the article reports that not completing the form is not unusual or an offense of any kind.   Even the quality of the speculation in the article is poor, with the  prosecutor only partially quoted by the reporter and those speculations about motives are contradictory, with the first allegation of misleading being to avoid jury duty, not the later allegation of being to avoid disclosing information.  It is no surprise that a busy sitting governor wants out of jury duty, and the possible conflict of interest relationed to pardons is a conveniently sufficient excuse.  While having to make these disclosures would have been very embarrassing for Bush, avoiding jury duty was likely to be so certain and easy, there is no reason to think the issue even rose to a level where Bush might have started thinking about deceiving.--Silverback 09:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your interpretation that the prosecutor meant that Bush was sleazily trying to get out of jury duty.  Because the prosecutor referred specifically to the new information (the DUI that he hadn't known about), I'd interpret him as meaning that Bush's chief motive was concealment.  That's also the opinion of the defense attorney, whom we didn't quote.  The current wording gives the prosecutor's opinion, quotes verbatim the Bush campaign's response, and lets the reader decide whether "the quality of the speculation in the article is poor".  In addition, the lawyer who represented Bush in this episode has now been nominated to be U.S. Attorney General.  I don't think that fact is worth mentioning in this paragraph in the article but we should be aware of it. JamesMLane 09:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my interpretation, the first line of the article ends with this "he was purposely misled by Bush and his attorney in an effort to avoid service".  But the whole allegation that if true could make the paragraph relevant, is that Bush deceived or misled.  There is no evidence that Bush did anything or that this rose to a level of concern the he would contemplate beginning to deceive.   It is rare for a Govenor to serve on a jury, assigning a summons to his attorney to handle without it rising to a level of concern would be routine.  The time to worry and begin to deceive would be if he didn't get excused and article points out that was negotiated in advance of going through the motions in court.  The SBVT truth at least had witnesses makeing sworn affadavits, presumably with complete sentences in them and who were in a location to have personal knowledge of the events.  This prosecutor has no personal knowledge of Bush's actions or intent, he could only swear to what he believes and thinks in logical.--Silverback 10:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the paragraph on the jury questionaire should be removed 

message: Why is the table listing the Cabinet members appearing on the right side of the page, leaving large ugly whitespace on its left? The markup appears to have "align='left'" on it, and it's not a problem with my browser because I checked in multiple browsers. —Lowellian (talk) 07:09, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
:I think there's a mistake in the table formatting. It says 'style="...;" align...'. Changing it to 'style="..." align...' makes the alignment (and border) work for me.
:The white space is caused by the  after the table, which prevents the next section from moving up alongside of the table. Probably the table should be moved to the top of its section.
:—wwoods 17:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrapped in a float:right div, and it looks better now.  --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet table alignment

message: In the Transcripts section of external links, the  tag displays badly.  I tried to fix a couple ways, but to no avail.  It appears correctly on a section preview, but not when saved.  Any help? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, tried 4 or 5 variations.  Previews correctly, renders wrong.  I'm using Netscape.  Wolfman 20:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting question 

message: 1.  The box with the Cabinet appointments is wrong.  Although some Cabinet members have submitted their resignations, these do not take effect until their successor is sworn in.  So, for example, Colin Powell is the Secretary of State until Condoleeza Rice is sworn in.  Same goes for Ashcroft, Evans and the others.
2. Concerning the above talkpage discussion.  It is amazing to me how people cannot stop their political viewpoint from obstructing their view of facts.  At this point it makes no sense to put Bush's administration in a historical context.  Many of the controversial acts Bush has done may be great for America in the future, OR it could be a disaster but only time will tell.  For example, TR's action in seizing the Panama Canal were controversial and maybe illegal but in the long run it is recognized as one of his Presidencies greatest achievements, likewise President Buchanan's reluctance to engage the Confederacy is now looked on as a major failure but at the time were seen as necessary to avoid war.  So with that in mind, I think the current Bush article is better because it seems to be simply reciting the events of Bush's first term without arguing whether these acts were right or wrong.
3. I noticed in the articles, that there are separate links between Bush's first term and his second (which will happen, regardless of what one of the contributors above thinks).  This is unnecessary.  It was not done for other two term Presidents, so I don't understand why we need to do it here.  Just have it all on the same page.
Thanks
Ramsquire 23:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Comments 

message: I've protected this page again because of the spurts of vandalism it has been receiving. Will unprotect as soon as is possible. Any changes, feel free to submit and discuss here. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely unnecessary.  This is an actively worked on page,  so the vandalism gets corrected almost instantaneously and gets lost in the noise.  It is the vandalism on less active pages you need to worry about.--Silverback 06:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For once I agree with Silverback.  Unprotect.  Dealing with the vandals is a hassle but a minor one.  Besides, how can anyone "unprotect as soon as is possible"?  We won't know how much vandalism will occur until it's unprotected.  JamesMLane 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Under "Domestic Policy" the following line appears:
Although President Bush did meet with the National Urban League, he is the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.
This is poorly written.  A better edit would be:
President Bush has met with the National Urban League as President, but has not yet met with the NAACP as President, though he did address the NAACP at their 2000 convention in Baltimore as a presidential candidate.  Should President Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.
This is a significant improvement for several reasons.  First, while Bush hasn't met with the NAACP as president, it's unfair to fail to mention that he has met with them in the past.  Secondly, Bush isn't "the first sitting President not to meet..." anymore than Bill Clinton was the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP up until the time that he actually did.  The sentence won't be true until Bush has left office still not having met with the NAACP.
:I agree.  Your statement should be added to the piece.Ramsquire 22:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree sounds more NPOV.--198 04:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: yes, making the edit now. Wolfman 05:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, well then, i see it's protected.  at any rate it's a clear improvement.  and the page should be unprotected, as it just encourages vandals by making them feel powerful.  block them, not us. 05:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to Meet with NAACP 

message: It sure seems like it.  Every time I visit this page, typically half of the current History actions on the screen are vandalism reverts. --I run like a Welshman 22:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if these things are tracked, in a meaningful way, but the impact here is probably less than on other pages because the page is actively worked, by experienced wikipedian's, reverting the vandalism is a minor nusance.  You will also usually many substantive changes to the page on any given day.  Really, once you gain some experience, it is hardly a bother at all.--Silverback 15:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It's probably to do with the amount of traffic this article recieves, Bush being about the most visible figure worldwide. Michael Moore and Adolf Hitler are two articles I've looked at that also recieve a lot of vandalism. At least there doesn't seem to be a revert war going on, like there was with the John McCain page a few weeks ago. Diceman 15:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most vandalized page on Wikipedia? 

message: The page is about George W. Bush.  I am looking, and thinking, things like his beliefes, financial backers, agenda and the like have a place in it.  They are legitimate in an article about him, and can and should be shown, albeit neutrally.  Its not just about "his acts and history as president".  FT2 09:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
:agreed--The_stuart 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more inclined to agree if we were doing a biography on the subjects in this page.  The problem is that many of these things turn out to be apocryphal and therefore don't belong in an encyclopedia.  In a biography it is more acceptable to use poetic license and rumors, than it would be in an encyclopedia article. Here we should stick to facts that can be verified (so that we don't have to keep constantly editing and adding things to the articles).  For example this article says that there have been rumors that Bush has used cocaine.  If it were to come out tomorrow that the cocaine use has unquestionably been verified, either way, then we'd have to change the article.  If it wasn't in there, we'd wouldn't have to add it unless it affected policy or his health, or had some current importance. However, I understand I am in the minority here, most people do want everything ever written about a figure in the wiki articles. Ramsquire 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other info

message: this page was moved - and there were problems with the move back (someone edited before the page was replaced).  Because actions weren't going through - it ended up with a move and a delete happening at the same time - and so the real page was deleted (by me!).  The restore function also wasn't working - possibly because of the size of the history.  Now it seems that the history is duplicated - but at least  the page is back and koo got it in the right state! -- sannse (talk) 01:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Tim Starling, the problem is fixed, so long as nobody tries to undelete the page again. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: An explanation

message: Someone filled out the entry for Robert Jordan as the author for Wheel of Time, so when someone clicks on the entry mentioned in Bush's business career it goes to that.  How can that get fixed as a redirect or something? --kizzle 22:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
:I've dabbed it into Robert Jordan (lawyer) and will now do a stub.  JamesMLane 18:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  robert jordan redirect 

message: The now-blocked 216 has a point, does he not? Should we really carry accusations without giving any real evidence at all? Evercat 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The cocaine "allegations" are just endearing and humanizing personal anecdotes.  Supporters probably think they add color to his testimony, and opponents can hope that someday he'll remember that prison would have denied the country a great leader in its time of need, and end the hypocritical drug war.--Silverback 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We give the evidence for what we state, namely that Bush has been accused of having used cocaine.  It's NPOV to report that accusation, which has enough currency in the political world to be notable whether or not it's true.  We don't assert it is true. JamesMLane 21:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocaine 

message: The foreign and domestic policy sections have already been placed into other articles but are still too large in this article - it's 56k last I checked.  I think it'd be best to further summarise those sections where possible.  I would do it but have no particular interest or knowledge about this topic. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut down the article 

message: What the article stated about Bush's career in the oil business was that he founded Arbusto; Arbusto changed its name to Bush Exploration, and under that name was sold to Spectrum 7; Spectrum 7 had Bush as its CEO and went bankrupt; Spectrum 7 was saved by Harken Energy; Bush became a director of Harken Energy, which encountered some financial difficulties, from which it extricated itself through an arrangement with Harvard.
It appears to me, however, that Spectrum 7 did not go bankrupt.  It lost money and might well have gone bankrupt except that it was saved by the Harken deal.  There's a detailed account of Bush's career in the awl bidness in this cached Village Voice article by the reputable James Ridgeway (I hope this link works):   To my mind, "bankrupt" implies a formal filing, by the company or by one or more creditors, in a Bankruptcy Court.  Even if it turns out that Spectrum 7 actually did go bankrupt, I find no support for the statement that was added to the lead section of this article that Bush managed "several oil companies which went bankrupt".  Accordingly, I've reworded that passage in the lead section and the more detailed discussion of these companies later on. JamesMLane 04:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that what seems to me to be the undeniable and somewhat germane fact that, prior to getting elected partially on the promise of 'running the country like a business' his experience with running a business seemed to consist mainly of overseeing their accumulation of massive deficits, is being NPOVed over. Perhaps the use of the words 'unsuccessful businessman' to refer to someone who presided over the serial running of several oil companies into the groud is too NPOV; but at least the observation that the companies over which he presided have not, on the whole, exactly been models of competitive economic success should be able to be presented in some sort of objective wording. Gzuckier 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the lead section, I think what we have now is appropriate.  I agree that his poor track record in the private sector is germane, but it should be presented in the section about his business career.  There, I think the objective wording is simply to describe the history of his companies, as we do. JamesMLane 08:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil companies

message: Boy, this will be controversial as hell, but what the heck. It looks like the bulge observed during debate is actually a medical instrument instead of a radio receiver. Below are the two articles related to Bush's bulge.  and
:"It looks like the bulge [...] is actually a medical instrument [...]? Oh, please, you need more than a speculative piece in a European leftist web site. If CNN or some other outlet with a press reputation says so, it might mean something. The belle ciao article is really a stretch. SO Bush is on powerful statin drugs. Oooooooooo, so is a huge hunk of the otherwise healthy US population. I've been on statins for several years and I'm Bush's age and have no cardiovascular disease. Simple high cholesterol--it's supposed to help me in the future. We'll see. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vascular dementia and Alzheimer&#8217;s disease 

message: We need to change the picture of Bush because in this picture his eyebrows are bushy and it makes him look like an ape
:We usually use the official picture.  You can confirm that this picture is Bush's official picture if you Google the phrase "miserable failure", which will take you to his bio on the White House website. JamesMLane 19:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, do not insult apes now! --  Nils 12:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Picture 

message: It seems that every time I return to check this out, someone has edited out my completely factual info about his past as a drunk and a drug user. Also, it seems that just about every somewhat unfavorable fact about George W. Bush is removed as well, such as the cheerleader thing, etc.
Most recent example: someone edited stuff out and put "this was written by angry democrats." True I am a democrat, but I don't stoop to the level of vandalism on an educational resource, as many republicans tend to do on John F. Kerry's page.
What is there that I can do to keep people from editing out my facts? Should I leave comments with sources or what? I mean... a video of him taking back shots at a party in 1992 would seem to be enough, right?
I believe these facts and accusations of alcohol and drug use are very important and educational. They should not be left out because some republican doesn't seem to like it. If John F. Kerry had been arrested for DUI, I would want that on his page too.
:I agree that this article seems to have been seriously messed up, although I don't agree with all your points.
:* A whole paragraph of completely uncontroversial information, such as his birthplace and parents' names, was deleted.  I've restored it.
:* Also deleted were two pictures, one of Bush with his family and one of Bush in his National Guard uniform.  I've restored the pics.
:* The addition of the statement that Bush signed up in the Guard "Specifically asking to not be sent to Vietnam" wasn't sourced.  I've deleted it unless someone can provide substantiation.
:* There was unacceptable POVing in both directions.  The NPOV approach is to report controversial points without taking sides and without wording that's biased one way or the other.
:**The language about Bush's drinking was full of "supposedly" and "claim" for his side of it, and said that the opposite view is "well documented".  I understand the temptation to take sides -- the people editing the Killian documents article just aren't satisfied with listing all the evidence, they too have to make sure that the article echoes their view of the weight of the evidence.  It's wrong when Bush partisans do it there, and wrong when Bush detractors do it here.  That Bush isn't drinking any more should certainly be presented as something he says, not as an undisputed fact, but we can make clear that it's his statement without going out of our way with the "supposedly" stuff to cast doubt on it.  I've tried to clean up these passages.
:**The Hatfield allegations should be reported as allegations, not suppressed and not reported as fact, and with the responses also reported.  I've restored the first paragraph about Hatfield; the text of the article when I looked at it just now quoted Bush's side of the story ("He also called Hatfield's book 'totally ridiculous'.") without naming the book or summarizing its content.  At some point, however, the paragraph about Hatfield's book picked up a statement to the effect that the record of Bush's cocaine arrest was in fact expunged.  That's Hatfield's allegation, not an established fact.
:* One point I still have doubts about is this insert about the space exploration initiative: "in January of 2005 the White House released a new Space Transportation Policy fact sheet which confirms the plan is still on track."  My preliminary impression is that that's a POV overstatement and should be reworded.  I've left it alone for now, but I think it needs attention. JamesMLane 10:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe somebody could update the article as to how Bush's previously announced War on Steroid Abuse is coming along. Grin grin. Gzuckier 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for Bush asking not to be sent to nam is all over the place. a google search found this ...which you may agree is a valid source (his own form). Andsat 04:40, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)
Oh come on here, I see Kerry's signature on his form, but I don't see Bush's on the part that is supposed to be from his form.--MONGO 12:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunk / Drugs / etc 

message: When I came to this page for the first time, it was after I had utilized another article for reference and dechiphered an obvious non NPOV. This POV was left leaning and I as surprised as I have used Wiki for some time now. So on a hunch, I queried George Bush and was appalled! The rampant slander was so apparent, I thought it was written by some left wing extremists and decided to start editing. I haven't decided as to whether I will continue to edit this page, becuase I have lost all faith that the major contributors to this article are to the extreme left. I find it funny, reading through others bios how young, perhaps not American citizens, and how liberal in attitude are those that I am arguing with here. I mentioned to one, that since he lived in Germany, perhaps I could utilize the same techniques employed by the likes of him and quote or state as fact that a book had been written by unreliable sources that Adolph Hitler wasn't such a bad guy and he had little to do with the murder of millions. These books do exist, in published form, and they are AN OPINION, yet we know that the opposite is true and therefore in good taste, we exclude them from any discussion here in Wiki. In a nutshell, this article utilizes POV and that POV is anti bush. Anyone that thinks that this rubbish of an article is NPOV is blind. I have been warned and etc. and I really don't care. So in an effort to show what ridiculous is, I created my user page and made it as preposterous as possible. MONGO--MONGO 11:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inuendo and slander 

message: MONGO removed this:
: In February, 2004, Salon claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in the spring of 1972 and his subsequently refusal to take a physical	  exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug	  Abuse Testing Program, which, Salon said, meant random drug testing for pilots, including Guardsmen.
I believe it's adequately referenced--if preferred I can include a complete citation for the precise article, or even quote a relevant paragraph.  Is there anything else you think should be provided to satisfy your problems with this, Mongo?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/index_np.html
See article referenced above --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Salon.com's February, 2004 report

message: I see alot of detractors trying to make hay about George W. Bush's "Gentleman" Cs he received in Yale. I'd like to amend this section to at least consider another POV regarding his performance in Yale. Here is a conservative (some say ultra-conservative) gentleman attending a liberal institution. The instructors are stubbornly Liberal in their views. A student who tries to argue their conservative beliefs would be labeled wrong and be given low grades. I am not saying that Bush is a genius. But, I am saying that he was disenfranchised (to use the term du jour) and his grades were depressed because of this conflict. He did go on and do much better when getting his MBA. Because Yale is a Liberal institution, I also wouldn't give much credence to the notion that Yale let Bush skate through.
First Lensman 15:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gentleman" Cs 

message: Alright, stop it. I'm an ultra-liberal, Kucinich-supporting, Democrat, and yes, it is very tempting to vandalize this page, esp. today. I even wrote up a vandalized edit making reference to his last name. But actually posting it is only a detriment to the Democratic Party. It makes us seem immature and juvenile. Democrats, stop it.
Would someone please protect this page for twenty-four hows or something?
* You voted for Kucinich? Seems like you and I made a good choice at least. I agree on the lock though, we could be spending our time doing much more productive things. :)
::That amount of vanderlism recived by this article in the last 24 hours doesn't seem hugley exceptionalGeni 03:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I agree with the edits made by 69.92.137.107 that have since been reverted by Rhobite.  For example, why is it necessary to link to a some random website where people try to collect signatures to impeach the President?  Is this really something that important to link to?--BaronLarf 06:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
The VoteToImpeach item deleted by 69.92.137.107 was not a link to the website in question, but to a Wikipedia article which said, inter lia: 
: In the days leading up to the 2004 election, the group was cited by some conservative pundits as proof that opponents of Bush believed President Bush would win.
:So it was hardly an anti-Bush link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't claim that it was an anti-Bush link.  Just not necessary and not something really topical in a 32k discussion of a president who has never had any serious threat of impeachment.  I can see that going in the George W. Bush Category, but not in a short list of related links.  But I know that trying to get a serious article about a conservative American politician written on here is like spitting in the wind, so I'm not getting my hopes up.  Cheers.  --BaronLarf 16:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
That has been my point...the leftist have determined that irrevelent is relevent. Thank you for a keen eye as I havene't even been able to get beyond the personal life section of the article yet due to the level of bias there alone.--MONGO 10:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Related links

message: This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination. I've left in all the stuff that the President has admitted to, the "reckless youth", the "DUI", the cessation of drinking at 40, because they are admitted to by the president himself, or substantiated by documentation. The article does not demonstrate a NPOV.
Items should be put up in the discussion area first so that the information can be vetted by the users. (See "Gentleman's Cs section above"). Then, there will be some massaging of the information that would eventually wind up in the article. Just posting information directly into the article is just not productive. First Lensman 23:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination."  I assume that, by "this article", you mean the Wormer article, not the Wikipedia article.  You're completely correct about Wormer's opinion concerning Bush.  Of course, exactly the same could be said about Bush's opinion concerning Saddam (he had WMD's, he was involved in 9/11, etc.).  Should we censor out Bush's pretexts for launching aggressive war just because they've largely been exposed to be pretexts?  No.  We report these opinions and attribute them.  To say that Saddam had WMD's is opinion.  To say that Bush claimed he did, however, is an undeniable fact.  A point that that people often miss is that reporting and attributing a POV is perfectly consistent with NPOV. JamesMLane 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't Bush's opinion concerning WMD. He was informed that they did have WMD by the United Nations, NATO, The members of the European Union, and the U.S. Intelligence Services. First Lensman 01:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Don't blame Bush for his faulty intelligence. For what it's worth, I agree with James - decribing POV opinion is not POV. To understand and contextualize an issue, POV's must be explored, in an NPOV way. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: James, I think if Wormer based her claims on observations similar to those a medical professional might make, people might not have such a problem with the paragraph. But she's claiming that Bush has a behavioral disorder because his rhetoric is not to her liking. She cites "regime change", a phrase that predates his presidency, as an example of his "extreme language." A remark from one speech, not repeated to my knowledge, indicates an "obsession" with revenge. She cites a sentence, "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients..." that would sound absurd if replaced with its negation "We need not be prepared..." So her conclusions end up looking shaky and random to someone who doesn't share her political bias, not much more credible than the report of the Lovenstein Institute. We could put a paragraph here for every allegation on Bush family conspiracy theory, but we don't. If Wormer's article has a place here, I think it's the External links section. Gazpacho 09:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You're deluding yourself. We have been involved in an aggressive war with Iraq since 1991. Repeatedly we bombed Iraq because of their consistent violations of the cease fire agreement. We maintained at tremendous cost in tax dollars a no fly zone and imposed sanctions which were detrimental to everyone because we were forced by agreements with our partners to not invade Iraq, overthrow their government and establish a democracy. Bush asserted that there were WMD because the evidence supported it, and it is therefore not a POV. Regardless, the fact that none have been found doesn't mean that they don't or didn't exist. The major contributors to this article seem to fail to understand that and blame Bush for making a decision based on the evidence. --MONGO 10:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongo, I don't think we need to turn every content dispute (or any content dispute) into an open argument about Iraq. Gazpacho
Most of my argument has been about content, this is my first about Iraq...what are you refering to?--MONGO 12:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Dry Drunk" nonsense