Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 41

message: The article deserves a prominent discussion of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents in the Introduction.  After an editor critically shortened my entry on these documents and moved it lower in the article, the article was immediately protected so only certain people could edit it.  The claim was the protection was required because new and anonymous editors had recently vandalized the article.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  A quick glance at the History of the article shows no edits by an anonymous editor.  While I have not edited the page in a while, I am neither new to Wikipedia or new to editing the page. This smacks of censorship. If Bush's presidency is going to be judged by his decision to go to war in Iraq, it is only fair to present readers with evidence that his judgment is being supported by these recently released documents. RonCram 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide your evidence on talk - and if it's relevant enough to the Bush biography article (quite a stretch in my own opinion), I'm sure consensus will support it. Your errant claims of censorship are disrespectful to your fellow editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protecting the article

message: No need for protection (edit, and move protection), the kiddies who usually vandalise this article are in schools. --Jozdnog 11:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for protection 

message: Neutrality, I'm a little confused about your recent edit. You seem to have reverted my capitalization changes wholesale; while your edit summary explains one or two of the changes, I had in fact changed 8 instances of "President" to "president" or vice versa, and most of those changes were in line with the whole "President as title, president as common noun" thing. Did you accidentally revert more than you meant to, or is there something I'm missing? --Ashenai 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try myself. --Golbez 01:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lookin' good, thanks! :) --Ashenai 01:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: British best-selling author and reseacher David Icke claims that George W. Bush is descended from extraterrestrial reptilian aliens from Draco and that he is a shape-shifting reptilian, as are the other Bushes and some other major political figures. He also claims they indulge in human sacrifice and blood drinking while in their reptoid incarnations. He has plenty of witness statements. Now he could be mistaken I guess, but shouldn't allegations as serious as this be included on this page? That the President might be an alien shapeshifter is a hardly just another piece of trivia after all. --195.93.21.137 08:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord. I'm from Draco! There goes the neighborhood. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Draco? We are talking the constellation Draco here. If you originate from there, from what I can gather from Icke you may well possess the ability to shape-shift. If you are talking about a place on Earth called Draco, I don't think the same principles would apply. Unless you are related to Bush or whoever. Bush dosen't like people to know that he's really from New England, never mind that his ancestors come from the constellation of Draco. --195.93.21.137 15:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Draco (disambiguation). bd2412 T 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Any relation: Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet??? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could well be, if the Canadian Tories have insider knowledge. Also, a leading lawyer once called Republicans 'reptilian bastards' and the people at Little Green Footballs call themselves 'Reptilian Minions' or 'Lizardoid Minions'. I reckon there is something in all of this. --195.93.21.137 08:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Bush a Reptilian Shapeshifter? 

message: He does like blue ties.--Ban.WMA 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Bush Stroke his Blue Tie? 

message: * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4849744.stm
* http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002236591
Kevin Baastalk 23:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new downing street memo 

message: This segment, a pair of users (one them new) keep re-adding to the introduction the last couple days. 
:Bush has also attempted to increase the power of the president in response to 9/11, claiming the executive branch can indefinitely suspend habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens declared "enemy combatants," and authorizing a controversial domestic surveillance program.
Pretty much every assertion in there is worded in a pov manner. Especially nice are the sneaky wiki links. And the sources you would need to make those claims are not notable enough to go in the introduction. keith 01:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see any factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, etc.  What is your problem with it? Kevin Baastalk 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bush has repeatedly claimed that the executive branch can indefinitely suspend habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens declared "enemy combatants".  Bush has authorized a controversial (this is an understatement) domestic surveillance program.  Bush has also attempted to increase the power of the president in response to 9/11, see Unitary executive theory.  So what's wrong with telling people those interesting and important facts in an encyclopedia article about the guy? Kevin Baastalk 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the only NPOV thing to do is to blank the entire controversies section, and replace it with a section entitled Ted Kennedy is fat, only way to ensure NPOV--205.188.116.138 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse one can operate within "presidential powers" whereas one could not before after expanding them.  That's the definition of expansion.  One's "interpretation" of powers includes one's interpretations of the limits, and by having an interpretation of the limits markedly different than that of the constitution and its signatories, namely, more expansive, well believing that this is "right" and acting on that belief is neccessarily attempting to expand the powers beyond what they were originally meant to be (by the signatories of the constitution) so as to fit one's unique "interpretation".  I'm sure he's operating well within his interpreation of what he wants them to be for him and what he wants people to think they are. (or actually believes they are? i give him more credit than this.) The question is whether this scope of operation is bigger or smaller than it was before, and whether he is actively pursued making it bigger or smaller than it was originally. Kevin Baastalk 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think unitary executive theory is new. It's been around a long, long time. It recently became porminent in the news becasue Samuel Alito subscribes to this opinion and has written opinions on it. The simple interpretation is that the Constitution places all the executive power in a single office of the presidency. It is very consistent with the Constitution and separation of powers. In fact, the statement "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" is pretty clear. The argument of the administration is that the resolution that gave the executive branch the authority of war (I think it's worded to be consistent with the War Powers Act) to pursue the 9/11 attackers using all available means. Th eadminsitration has interpreted this to mean that those responsible for 9/11 can be held as enemy combatants and they can have their phones taps (as well as being shot and killed). It seems odd that the bill would allow cruise missiles to be sent to Afghanistan, but Afghanistan phone calls could not be monitored. Also it seems odd that if you believe the military would be authorized to shoot down an airliner that is hijacked without a warrant, but not listen to the phone calls of the hijackers without a warrant. Just an observation. --Tbeatty 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversial controversies 

message: I have always wondered about George W. Bush's 'name.'  He has his father's name with the difference being the middle part, W(alker).  So wasn't he called 'Junior' as a kid?  Is 'Junior' a part of his name? ````Northridge
:I think he was often casually refered to as 'George Bush, Jr' prior to him becoming more famous in his own right and still is occasionally. He may have been called 'Junior' as a kid but it certainly isn't an offical part of his name. I think 'Junior' can only be any sort of official part of a person's name if they share their father's exact name, such as James Earl Carter Jr. for instance. Because he lacks the 'Herbert' of his father, I don't think he could really be offically called Bush Jr. --195.93.21.137 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?

message: The section on immigration could probably be expanded by someone knowledgable on the topic, as it seems to be evolving into one of the hot-button issues on the domestic front in the US.  youngamerican (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration 

message: The Presidential firsts section is at best irrelevant and at worst bias towards an anti-bush POV. There have been many firsts for President Bush both positive and negative depending on the POV. Stating that he is the first president to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote is also inaccurate. This honor would belong to Rutherford Hayes in the 1876 Election when "Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, was the favorite to win the presidential election and, in fact, won the popular vote by about 250,000 votes (with about 8.5 million voters in total)." 
Making a point of the fact that Bush was the first nominated for a Razzie seems somewhat irrelevant.
If we are going to have a section on presidential firsts it should include a multitude of firsts for which his presidency has mamy including the first to have an African American Women as Secretary of State and the first to publicly supoprt the creation of a Palenstinian state.
The point is that the section needs to be more balanced and comprhensive with a NPOV. If not then the section should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTaylorCU (talk • contribs) 
Agreed.  Wikipedia is not an indsiscrimate collection of information.  BlueGoose 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Firsts 

message: Most of the "missing" information is already in the daughter article, created not to "whitewash" his past accomplishments, but to keep this page from reaching size where it might actually violate wikimedia size restraints and break the software so to speak, the reason this article was splintered in the first place was because it was on the verge of being browser-crashingly-large, simply copying content from the daughter articles back into the original is not all that useful, if you are really insistent on adding something, I suppose we could always change  into , but that would mean bypassing the page size restrictions in the software, and restoring the page to browser-crashing-largeness again--64.12.117.13 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush]]

message: I mean with the whole world, and 1/2 our country hating him, (United States) Why not add a "common criticism" article?? I mean we made one for Tony Blair, why not George W. Bush???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs) 
*because having a criticisms section on an article that isn't about liberals, would indicate a clear liberal bias, we can't have that here!  NPOV = White house biography POV, either learn to live with it, or come back in larger numbers than the freeprs have--205.188.116.138 00:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no criticism article?